P2P Crackdown... aka: Moderator on the loose! [Archive]

dragongodz

28th August 2004, 08:12

That is obviously an implication that he believes if the industry can't prove downloading costs them money then stealing isn't stealing.
or it could mean that it shows the RIAA are making it up to initiate questionable legal proceedings. or or it could mean the RIAA is attacking P2P in a money grubbing exercise which will not help them at all. or... you get the idea. Doom9 did not say it was alright just the reason P2P was being attacked is unproven and in 1 study shows the opposite.

If in defense of your mother's grocery store you went on a campaign to explain how that guy that took her flowers was going to cause her to go out of business and you KNEW you were exaggerating or making up non facts... It still doesn't justify his theft of the flowers in the first place...
hmm and if accused him of stealing saying you had less flowers there after he walked past as proof and ignored that 100 other people walked past aswell what then ? you are purposly misleading the legal system to persecute 1 person. no he would not be right in stealing but you would also be wrong in making up stuff to have him arrested to start with. if this was proved in court any evidence found based on your lies would be made inadmissable. the RIAA are getting away with blue murder with this though.

he RIAA represents the Studios who will say or do anything to protect THEIR product... Get it? THEIR PRODUCT! If they LIE about the damages caused by P2P downloading who cares
hmm well anybody who is recieving nasty letters threatening to take them to court and put them in jail etc would care for starters. there has already been shown cases where the RIAA got it completly wrong but hey why should we care, why should big business have to have real proof before scaring the shit out of old ladies and litle kids ? ye thats sounds right. :sly:

Folks PLEASE DEFEND P2P for it's REAL values. I support that. But don't give the RIAA illogical arguments that hurt the cause. You can't justify theft.
and again you completely miss the point being stuck on the "downloading copyrighted material is wrong". so let me say this nice and slow. ITS NOT ABOUT DOWNLOADING COPYRIGHTED MATERIAL IS OK, ITS NOT. ITS ABOUT THE RIAA USING DECLINING SALES AS AN EXUCE TO ATTACK P2P WITHOUT ANY PROOF THAT P2P IS CAUSING THE DECLINE.

You must support P2P for it's legitimate uses of sharing NON copywrited material if you want to keep P2P long term.
the RIAA are NOT interested in the truth, dont you get that yet ? they do NOT want P2P and are using no real proof to attack it. so no matter what you say to them it will be dismissed, that harvard study was for example in 5 seconds flat.

int 21h

28th August 2004, 09:29

The RIAA and MPAA use outdated business models. This is a fact. The RIAA and MPAA go on these witch hunts every few years as a distraction to consumers, anything so that the consumer pays no attention to the man behind the curtain.

I've posted it before, and I'll post it again. These things are very circular. In another few years, the artist consortiums will have moved to a new format that is inaccessible to consumer reproduction, and then, a few years after that, they will launch another witch hunt, complaining about declining sales, etc. after the release of some new consumer data device.

Here's a funny article from 1996 showing you a glimpse of the circle:
http://lawcrawler.findlaw.com/mad/cdr.htm

P2P isn't going anywhere, hell, the entire internet is one big peer-to-peer network if that is any comfort to you. Conversely, the entertainment consortiums (RIAA & MPAA) aren't going anywhere either. This is all just part of the circle of life, and it moves us all, through despair and hope, through faith and love, till we find our place, on the path unwinding, in the circle... the circle of life. (rawr)

dragongodz

28th August 2004, 10:09

till we find our place, on the path unwinding, in the circle... the circle of life. (rawr)
HAHAHAHA i love that ending. :D

Sirber

28th August 2004, 13:14

We could add some music to that :D

http://www.lionking.org/sounds/MIDI/CircleOfLife-3.mid

lol

Neo Neko

28th August 2004, 13:47

@geffroman

Yor analogy is highly flawed. If the man went and made a digital copy of the flower for his girlfriend then that would be much more analogus. So is the little old lady actually out a sale if the guy just takes a digital picture? Ie makes a digital copy. Of course not. This is analogus to P2P. Sure he did not buy. But he would never have in all likelyhood anyway.

Intent to download can not be equated or related to intent to buy. Because you can download quite cheaply etc you will likely download more stuff than you would ever buy. So all downloads could never be considdered lost sales because there is no way to support such a sales figure. Yet that is exactly what the RIAA/MPAA and members are claiming. They claim that each and every download "IS" a lost sale. Absurd! Further they claim that even if you download legal content via P2P that still makes you a pirate. Which makes it clear what their beef is. It changes the status quo and puts them out of favor. And they don't like that.

And the whole issue of whether downloading copyrighted works is wrong etc is not so simple as that. First of all there is no law saying it is illegal. If you feel that downloading copyright material is wrong it really comes down to a moral issue. But the thing to remember is that not everyone is going to share your moral beliefs. And morals do not equal laws. All the studdies and claims the RIAA etc have made are complete BS. They are not speaking from a well formed legal viewpoint. And they make grandly sweeping over generalizations while ignoring key facts. The supreme court just got done telling them that they are not going to shut down or regulate P2P. That it is 100% legal. And many of the judges involved with the RIAA racketeering etc wish that the defendants in those cases would stop settling out of court so the judge could set legal precidence and throw the book at the RIAA for violation of consumer rights and general mob/organised crime behavior.

And don't get me started on DRM. It's never going to work.

Sirber

28th August 2004, 14:00

What about DRM?

neo75903

28th August 2004, 14:12

Originally posted by Sirber
What about DRM?

DRM is not going in my house. I already avoid buying cds with copy protection. Otherwise i just buy a live dvd or something.
For online music, try this site:
http://www.allofmp3.com/index2.shtml

They sell music in mp3 or ogg format, no DRM at all, way to go. And they even charge u by download (0.01$/MB). You want higher bitrates? then you pay more. I think that is an excellent idea.

---------------------------------------------------------------
neo geko: So all downloads could never be considdered lost sales because there is no way to support such a sales figure.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Idd i donwload more then i actually interested in. Mostly ou of curiousity what that is, after that it just sits on my hd.

Sirber

28th August 2004, 14:16

That's for sure DRM is bad :) Everything I have is unprotected and I intent to keep it that way. That's the freedom of choices.

stephanV

28th August 2004, 15:59

Originally posted by Neo Neko
@geffroman

Yor analogy is highly flawed. If the man went and made a digital copy of the flower for his girlfriend then that would be much more analogus. So is the little old lady actually out a sale if the guy just takes a digital picture? Ie makes a digital copy. Of course not. This is analogus to P2P. Sure he did not buy. But he would never have in all likelyhood anyway.
In fact, this analogy is flawed:

Music and movies are largely provided in a form that is already digital. A flower is not, therefor you cannot compare a digital picture of flower with a real flower. The digital picture does not smell as the real flower, it does not feel as the real flower, i cannot put it in a vase (well, perhaps i could ;) ). The experience you get from a real flower is different than that of a picture of flower. For music and movies this experience does not change, the functionality of it stays the same. I can still listen to the music, i can still watch the movie.

Also, as geffroman already ponted out, whether someone would have bought something or not has got exactly zip to do with it. That arguement only goes against the arguement of RIAA that they lose sales. However, it does not justify the downloading as such: stealing is stealing.

And the whole issue of whether downloading copyrighted works is wrong etc is not so simple as that. First of all there is no law saying it is illegal.

well, really? rule #6 could go in the trashbin then...

All the studdies and claims the RIAA...
Don't turn this thread into a RIAA bashing one. The fact that you do, only shows that you are missing geffroman's point. Downloading copyrighted material is not OK because the RIAA sucks.

Neo Neko

28th August 2004, 21:43

Originally posted by Sirber
What about DRM?

DRM is only going to be effective if it protects 100%. If even one person circumvents it and shares unprotected coppies then the whole DRM issue is mute. Sure people will not be able to copy what they legally own. But they will be able to download it. Which leads to another issue. DRM is supposed to stop both legal and illegal sharring. Since DRM can never be 100% effective it will actually increase the number of people sharing and downloading. Those who can no longer rip will download from those who can. In escence exasperating the problem. At which point the RIAA et all will lobby for more exaustive legislation to provide prisons to accomidate the majority of the population as that is where the RIAA would have them go.

Originally posted by stephanV

In fact, this analogy is flawed:

Music and movies are largely provided in a form that is already digital. A flower is not, therefor you cannot compare a digital picture of flower with a real flower. The digital picture does not smell as the real flower, it does not feel as the real flower, i cannot put it in a vase (well, perhaps i could ;) ). The experience you get from a real flower is different than that of a picture of flower.

That is all true. Notice I did not claim it was a perfect analogy. Just simply more analogus. I have yet to hear a good analogy expressing this propperly from any side.

Originally posted by stephanV

For music and movies this experience does not change, the functionality of it stays the same. I can still listen to the music, i can still watch the movie.

Ahh but here is where you start to go wrong. Unless that is you can download plastic CD/DVD cases and professionally printed paper jackets etc. Not to use your argument some digital fascimily such as a jpeg scan etc. It whould not have the feel or smell of the original product.

Originally posted by stephanV

Also, as geffroman already ponted out, whether someone would have bought something or not has got exactly zip to do with it. That arguement only goes against the arguement of RIAA that they lose sales. However, it does not justify the downloading as such: stealing is stealing.

So what you are syaing is that if I download something from you; you then no longer have that thing. I want to run an eperiment to test this theory. Click on this (http://forum.doom9.org/avatar.php?userid=7278&dateline=1070526945) link to download the image with my avatar on it. If it disappears when you copy it you will have suceeded in actually stealing something by copying. If it is still there then all you have done is coppied it and stolen nothing. So if the latter is true while stealing may be stealing downloading is not.

Originally posted by stephanV

well, really? rule #6 could go in the trashbin then...

No not really. Something can be copyrighted and yet downloaded legally. It could be copyrighted and downloaded legally for free. There is no law stating that copyrighted works may not be downloaded or transfered electronically. No such law on the books. Downloading is not illegal. Copyright violation yes. Downloading no. But so as not to have a double standard that conflicts with what the RIAA has claimed. I'll also ignore copyright violation. They claim regardless of copyright violation that all downloads are theft and violate their rights whether they have any or not. They even use legal downloads as an example of people that pirate. So it is only fair that we be allowed to also ignore copyright violation in this context. No? And in that context regardless of copyright violation there can be no illegal downloading. So instead of attacking downloading and those that do it the RIAA and frends would be much better off attacking copyright violators instead. Because after all it is the copyright violations that break the law. Not the downloading. Two different though sometimes related acts.

Originally posted by stephanV

Don't turn this thread into a RIAA bashing one. The fact that you do, only shows that you are missing geffroman's point. Downloading copyrighted material is not OK because the RIAA sucks.

I did not say it is ok because the RIAA sucks. In all the words I have typed before in this thread the term "RIAA sucks" never appeared. And I am not that attached to the RIAA in this case. Should we discuss the MPAA or those weasels at the BSA? :devil: They are all equally aplicable and misguided. Of corse downloading copyrighted material is not ok simply as you put it because "the RIAA sucks". Then again neither is downloading copyrighted material wrong just because the RIAA/MPAA/BSA says so. I don't especially agree with the NRA alot. But one of their slogans is aplicable here in a moddified form. P2P networks don't break laws, people do. Or. Downloads don't break laws, people do. A P2P client is an inanimate non sentiant object that has no evil intent or malice attached. It is simply a tool. Much like the RIAA is a ROYAL tool. Should we outlaw hammers or jail those who own them simply because they could be used to bash someones skull in? No of course not. Should we call copying stealing or theft? No of course not. Hell even copyright violation is not theft. I can violate copyright without stealing a thing.

If we are going to discuss this lets use the right terminology. Using the same weasel words as the RIAA/MPAA/BSA only makes you look as foolish as them.

dan991199

28th August 2004, 22:53

If you buy a shirt, is it illeagle to lend it to a friend?
i've paid $20 for a shirt before, and i've paid $20 for a cd i OWN the shirt and i can do as i please with it, but i dont OWN the music? i Dont copy the shirt and pass it off as something i created, and i dont claim to have created the music either. whats the difference? oh yes.. the creaters of the shirt arnt going to sue the families of anyone i lend it too... its all so clear now, clear as mud

geffroman

29th August 2004, 03:14

Originally posted by Neo Neko
@geffroman

Your analogy is highly flawed. If the man went and made a digital copy of the flower for his girlfriend then that would be much more analogous. So is the little old lady actually out a sale if the guy just takes a digital picture? Actually it is your logic that is flawed. The digital reproduction (picture) of a publicly displayed flower is not a product... However, a digital copy of a digital product is a product... and therefore theft... You don't need a TOUCHable item to steal... A model OWNS her image until she signs it away... a Song or Movie is a product regardless of the media used to carry it about... a picture of a flower in a corner grocery is NOT a product... The flower is...

Packaging does not remove responsibility of theft... If you were correct then all those low end crap DVDs & VCDs from China sold on eBay that are straight up pirating would be considered legal copies by you because they ship them in different cheap plastic cases with crappie covers... The product is the MOVIE or SONG... the media means nothing... Steal the flower you go to jail... Steal the movie you go to jail... put the movie on VCD does NOT make you any less guilty of stealing the movie...!

I also never said downloading was the illegal act... It is the TAKING of someone else's product that is theft... separate downloading from stealing... then you can defend P2P without defending stealing with weak argument.

The guy in my analogy used his sneakers to get to the grocery where he took (stole) the flower. If some crack pot organization (RIAA) tried to OUTLAW sneakers would you defend the thief? Of course not... you would point out the legal and valuable uses of sneakers and get Congress to create law to keep your right to sneakers.

As long as people TRY to defend stealing instead of defending P2P for it's legitimate uses you appear to be defending theft... and THAT wont fly... NOT EVER... This is not about high morals... or interpretation of law... It's very black and white actually... A song or Movie is copywrited... you don't own it unless you pay for it... EVER! And that my friends has NOTHING to do with the real reasons to defend P2P!

The thing I like about this dialogue every time it comes up is that it really does separate who is backing up their DVDs and who is boootleegging Netflix discs...

Doobie

29th August 2004, 04:09

Originally posted by geffroman If your Mom owned a corner grocery and she grew flowers in the garden out back and sold them in the grocery and some guy walking by who had NO intention of ever buying his girl flowers decides to grab a bunch off the flower stand and took them home to his gal, YOU would call him a thief.

The correct analogy is that my mom SELLS a PHOTO of flowers to the guy and his friend takes a picture of the photo for himself.

The actual flowers is the actual peformance. The CD of that performance is like the picture of the flowers. Copying the CD is like copying the picture of the flowers.

"Piracy" is not theft, it's a purely statutory crime of copyright violation. By definition, it is not theft. Copyright law does not exist because anyone has a natural right to own content. Copyright law exists to support a profit motive so people will create content.

If my mom can't make money selling photos of flowers, she's free to stop. But, no one is a thief for not buying the picture of the flowers, whatever their reason may be.

My mom is free to discontinue the selling of photos if she doesn't like the rules of the public domain or if she isn't making enough money to bother with it. But, I think my mom would be glad for people to copy her photos to help her make money selling actual flowers. Likewise, musicians should see P2P as an advertising medium for concerts instead of trying to shape the law so that they can get rich off of royalty checks.

Why aren't you outraged that copyright protection expires, if you think unauthorized copying is theft?

JonLech

29th August 2004, 04:15

Supreme Court Justice Harry Blackmun, Dowling v. the United States:

It follows that interference with copyright does not easily equate with theft, conversion or fraud. The Copyright Act even employs a separate term of art to define one who misappropriates a copyright: "Anyone who violates any of the exclusive rights of the copyright owner," that is, anyone who trespasses into his exclusive domain by using or authorizing the use of the copyrighted work in one of the five ways set forth in the statute, "is an infringer of the copyright."

geffroman

29th August 2004, 05:43

Originally posted by Doobie
The correct analogy is that my mom SELLS a PHOTO of flowers to the guy and his friend takes a picture of the photo for himself.

You would be right if this was a filming of a Play or an illegal recording of a Rock concert... But in fact the Movie is the product... Not the performance...

One again you have demonstrated what too many people do... Twisted logic to find a loophole to justify theft/piracy/something wrong...

Just find quality excuses to save P2P and let these weak arguments go... They only work when singing to the choir... and they HURT the cause when making them to anyone not vested with an interest...

Anyway, I have enjoyed getting to voice what I believe to be an important point of view if you guys really wanna HELP the P2P cause... I hope it sinks in with some of you... enjoy the thread... :)

dragongodz

29th August 2004, 05:50

geffroman and stephanV - go back and read my reply to that analogy please and then comment on that.

everyone - for gods sake already this is NOT about downloading copyrighted material being ok. it IS about the RIAA using half truths and even lies as an excuse to impinge peoples rights and attack P2P. so lets PLEASE stick to the subject.

The thing I like about this dialogue every time it comes up is that it really does separate who is backing up their DVDs and who is boootleegging Netflix discs...
thats plain insulting and ignorant. you do NOT know who is doing what. take a look at my arguemnts to you and you will see i dont condone downloading copyrighted material but i do disagree that its ok for the RIAA to lie to attack/sue people and/or services(such as P2P). i think you owe people here and apology.

dvd_master

29th August 2004, 06:03

I've used P2P all the time. I downloaded the Breaking the Habit song from Linkin Park after seeing the music video. I bought the CD the next day. I downloaded Mean Girls, and am practically dying to buy the DVD. I downloaded Freaky Friday and bought that DVD when it came out.

I've watched uncountable animes that I downloaded. I downloaded R.O.D TV, bought the DVDs. My passion (and purchase) of the Utena series came from low quality ASF files from way long ago.

This continues. They can gain sales from P2P just as easily. There are people who will abuse it, but I think most people would never have bought the movies in the first place. While that does mean they shouldn't be entitled to watch it, it doesn't mean that RIAA/MPAA is losing a sale.

Phanton_13

29th August 2004, 07:10

the real poblem is in the RIA and BSA are old "companys" with older bussines metodes, and they don't like to change to a more flexible metodes, other problem if in the music labels, they saw in the p2p and internet a enemige, ¿what if all the autors decide to sell their products directly in internet, or public their music free fro noncomercial use( this increase trhe asistence in to their concerts)?

I found a imposible law propost but this is interesting: any product that you can't buy it for they are not selled in at least 2years , its legal any noncomercial distribution of it.

You can copy "la madona" but you are not stealing it. I'n the reality in the digital world you not teh music or a movie, you only copy a serie of bits, and only if you kwnow the mode to interpret this bits you can interpret it of a video or audio. If you download a music in aac and you only can play mp3, ¿you have copied de music?

"sorry for my bad english"

geffroman

29th August 2004, 07:27

Originally posted by dragongodz
geffroman and stephanV - go back and read my reply to that analogy please and then comment on that.

everyone - for gods sake lets PLEASE stick to the subject.
Ha Ha... Well since I started the thread I think I am qualified to decide what the Subject is or is not... The subject of this thread is P2P Crackdown It is not about making excuses for stealing because the RIAA lied to you... Get over your high and mighty apology seeking self already... This has been a good exchange of viewpoints until you started calling people insulting and demanding apologies...

Huggz and kisses everyone...

Neo Neko

29th August 2004, 07:47

Originally posted by geffroman
Actually it is your logic that is flawed. The digital reproduction (picture) of a publicly displayed flower is not a product... However, a digital copy of a digital product is a product...

So what you are basically saying is that there is no difference between an MP3 and the CD it was ripped from? No difference between a Divx movie etc and the DVD source. This is of course foolish. But it is where you logic is leading. Now an image of an audio CD or DVD is much closer. But still not exactly the same as the original product. And therefore by strictest definition not the "product". Because strictly speaking the product is more than just the contents.

Originally posted by geffroman
You don't need a TOUCHable item to steal...

True. But in order to steal there has to be actual "REAL" loss that can be shown. To whit the RIAA/MPAA/BSA have next to nothing to show for losses that can be closely correlated to P2P and filesharing. In fact some of the few objective studdies done on the topic actualy show something quite different from real loss. They have shown little to no real loss and indeed a little real profit from file sharing. The exact opposite of what groups like the RIAA/MPAA/BSA bemone on a daily basis. If someone who would have never bought a product to begin with downloads a lossy derrivitive of a product (therefore not "the product" itself) it is not a lost sale. Nor does it effect sales negatively in any fashion. In fact as many here I am sure would attest it actually has caused them to buy things they would have never bought otherwise.

Originally posted by geffroman
A model OWNS her image until she signs it away...

False. Go ahead ask any celebrity. They will tell you otherwise. Because no one can "own" their own image or likeness. A model sells more than just their image. They sell their services as well. In public anyone is fair game. Even the most famous of models and celebrity. Take the paparatzi for instance. If what you said were true what they do would be pattently illegal. But it isn't. In fact it is legally protected. The model can't charge the paparatzi for the right to take their picture when they are in public. Then again the model does not have to cooperate with the paparatzi thereby denying them the services for which the model gets paid.

Originally posted by geffroman
a Song or Movie is a product regardless of the media used to carry it about...

A product perhaps. But not the same product as the source. Everything is basically a product of some sort.

Originally posted by geffroman
a picture of a flower in a corner grocery is NOT a product...

Says who? It verry well could be.

Originally posted by geffroman
Packaging does not remove responsibility of theft...

But the burden of proof for violating a persons right to privacy is on the person claiming theft. Of which there is no proof. As there has been no theft.

Originally posted by geffroman
If you were correct then all those low end crap DVDs & VCDs from China sold on eBay that are straight up pirating would be considered legal copies by you because they ship them in different cheap plastic cases with crappie covers...

Wow. Grasp at straws much? Because I "am" correct all those low end HK pirate media still are truly illegal. Because you can actually show real loss. And therefore actual theft. Further it is also copyright infringement. It is impossible to steal anything via P2P. Completely not possible. You can't show real loss and therefore have no basis for a claim of theft. It is still however copyright infringement.

Originally posted by geffroman
The product is the MOVIE or SONG...

If it were sold/distributed online in a digital format perhaps. But if it is a product that has a unique and common physical media by which it is distributed then the product is more than the contents of the media.

Originally posted by geffroman
the media means nothing...

Ask yourself then why you buy it? Surely it must mean something. Surely it must offer something you find worth the cost. In escence without a media the content means nothing.

Originally posted by geffroman
Steal the flower you go to jail... Steal the movie you go to jail...

The moment the MPAA can show actual theft (they never will be able to) I will agree with you. Copying is not stealing. Get your terms straight. Copying with out the right is copyright infringement. Verry different from theft or stealing. Copying without the right and then selling is theft. But not because of the copying but the selling.

Originally posted by geffroman
put the movie on VCD does NOT make you any less guilty of stealing the movie...!

If I download a screener for a curent theatrical presentation I have stolen nothing. What I would have done is violate the copyright. Very different from theft.

Originally posted by geffroman
I also never said downloading was the illegal act... It is the TAKING of someone else's product that is theft...

Perhaps. But that is neither what is happening or what is being discussed. We are talking about copyright infringement not theft. It is by definition of current law impossible to steal anything via free public P2P services. You don't create loss. Free P2P services divert no cash flow. The cash is still there. Therefore the potential for a sale is still there and not lost. Pattently not theft. Copyright infringement.

Originally posted by geffroman
separate downloading from stealing... then you can defend P2P without defending stealing with weak argument.

I am not defending stealing. Stealing is morraly and legaly wrong. But downloading is not stealing. And is not wrong in itself. You claim that downloading is stealing. It is not. It is copyright infringement. Copyright infringement is morraly and legally wrong and I am not really going to spend any time defending it even though I could. But I am however going to make the point that downloading is not theft if it is the last thing I do. ;) It is a very abstract subject. Because of that it is no wonder you are confused.

Originally posted by geffroman
The guy in my analogy used his sneakers to get to the grocery where he took (stole) the flower.

Your problem is that you have yet to show how downloading is stealing.

Originally posted by geffroman
If some crack pot organization (RIAA) tried to OUTLAW sneakers would you defend the thief? Of course not...

Actually I would defend his and everyone elses right to wear sneakers (aka P2P). Because they are not the problem. And this is what you seem to miss.

Originally posted by geffroman
As long as people TRY to defend stealing instead of defending P2P for it's legitimate uses you appear to be defending theft...

No it only comes off as defending theft when you play the RIAA/MPAA/BSA's game and call it such. No one here is defending theft. Because we are not really talking about theft. Which would be a prerequisite for defending theft in some way. But downloading is not theft.

Originally posted by geffroman
This is not about high morals... or interpretation of law... It's very black and white actually...

Actually; oddly, that is exactly what it is about. And it is far from black and white. Almost nothing is black and white. Children see things in black and white. Adults recognise shades of grey. Does this say something about yourself? That I leave up to you to decide.

Originally posted by geffroman
A song or Movie is copywrited... you don't own it unless you pay for it... EVER!

False. Even if you pay for it you still don't own it. You simply paid for the right to "copy". And not the actual content. Hence "copy right". Your right to the copy but not to the content. You never own the content.

Originally posted by geffroman
The thing I like about this dialogue every time it comes up is that it really does separate who is backing up their DVDs and who is boootleegging Netflix discs...

In what way? All it shows is how much you have yet to understand. Oh and by the way. Bootlegging is not theft or illegal by itself either. :D

dragongodz

29th August 2004, 07:49

Well since I started the thread I think I am qualified to decide what the Subject is or is not
no you took what Doom9 said and twisted it to mean something which it does not say. or maybe you can read Doom9s mind right ?

The subject of this thread is P2P Crackdown It is not about making excuses for stealing because the RIAA lied to you.
tell you what, why dont you bother to read what i wrote then ? my replies HAVE been about P2P crackdown and the REASONS behind it being lies and half truths. at no point do i condone downloading copyright material. so who doesnt get the subject ?

Get over your high and mighty apology seeking self already... This has been a good exchange of viewpoints until you started calling people insulting and demanding apologies...
lets get this straight, YOU insulted people first by accusing them of bootlegging because they dont agree with you. i didnt insult or call you a name at all. so dont try and say i started the insults mate or you will get an earful. so how about you get off your high frelling horse, read what people have actually written and stop trying to be smart.

Neo Neko

29th August 2004, 07:57

Originally posted by Phanton_13
the real poblem is in the RIA and BSA are old "companys" with older bussines metodes, and they don't like to change to a more flexible metodes, other problem if in the music labels, they saw in the p2p and internet a enemige, ¿what if all the autors decide to sell their products directly in internet, or public their music free fro noncomercial use( this increase trhe asistence in to their concerts)?

I found a imposible law propost but this is interesting: any product that you can't buy it for they are not selled in at least 2years , its legal any noncomercial distribution of it.

You can copy "la madona" but you are not stealing it. I'n the reality in the digital world you not teh music or a movie, you only copy a serie of bits, and only if you kwnow the mode to interpret this bits you can interpret it of a video or audio. If you download a music in aac and you only can play mp3, ¿you have copied de music?

"sorry for my bad english"

Your english may be strained. But your grasp and understanding are clear. That is honestly the real issue. It has nothing to do with theft and everything to do with the big publishers not being needed anymore. They are scared and more than willing to lie like SCO. Unfortunatly like SCO, people and the media in general don't dispute those lies. Rather they often just accept them. And that is wrong. They will however be shown for what they are someday. May it come soon.

dragongodz

29th August 2004, 07:59

the burden of proof for violating a persons right to privacy is on the person claiming theft
if anyone bothered to read my reply to the original analogy you would have seen i already talked about that. the fact that the RIAA are getting away with lieing to break peoples rights doersnt seem to matter to geffroman though. to quote
If they LIE about the damages caused by P2P downloading who cares.

go back and read my reply because the legal system DOES care if you purposfully lie or mislead it to violate a persons rights. such as using it for the basis of a law suit or damages thereof.

geffroman

29th August 2004, 10:07

Neo I thought I was through with this thread but you truly surprised me... I have loved this forum... I have learned so much... I have given back through my website free services anyway I could... I have donated lots of money to authors whos software I use as well as doom9... I have a ton of respect for the doom9 community... but after reading your post and seeing just how truly twisted you are... and the length at which you will stretch and mislead a simple truth to find some slimmy loophole to justify simple theft disgusts me...

It is no great loss I know... But unless doom9 himself plans on stepping in and correcting your mouth on his forum, I will not likely be back... I could never again respect a site that props people like you up as an authority on their site... You are supposed to be a voice of fairness and reason and you have demonstrated the worst kind of self centered logic for personal gain at the total cost of any sense of proper ethics... At the very least you don't know the meaning of the word MODERATOR... You hurt your own cause and are too ignorant to even see that...

int 21h

29th August 2004, 10:50

Why don't you take your ball and go home then... er wait you are...

Doom9 is a great place because many people of different cultures and different ideals can meet in a place where none of that matters and discuss technological issues of interest. Threads such as these can be classified in the same 'political' discussions if for nothing else their outcome.

The bottom line here is that for this forum to work, we all have to respect each other's opinions, ethics, and beliefs. I didn't see anything truly offensive in Neo's post, he was simply stating his beliefs.

Spotteri

29th August 2004, 11:54

This is a little offtopic, but I just have to bring my side to the conversation.

In my country there are 2 public and 2 commercial TV-channels that are available for anyone. The 2 public non-commercial channels are gouverment owned and dont broadcast advertisement, but if you own a television you have to pay a large sum of money every 6 months to support them. These four channels push out crap you could not belive. Mostly its just news, sports, domestic soaps and endless reruns of the fiew foreign series.

Because of this I use P2P-software to download US and British TV-shows to fix the problem. Most of the shows that I download will never come here anyway and if they do they only show couple of seasons and leave the viewers whining for more.

So. Is downloading stealing, copyright infringement or someting else... I JUST DONT GIVE A SHIT

stephanV

29th August 2004, 15:17

Originally posted by Neo Neko
Ahh but here is where you start to go wrong. Unless that is you can download plastic CD/DVD cases and professionally printed paper jackets etc. Not to use your argument some digital fascimily such as a jpeg scan etc. It whould not have the feel or smell of the original product.
Again this is wrong: copyright doesnt protect the CD/DVD, it protects the content, in what form it is presented doesnt really matter.

So what you are syaing is that if I download something from you; you then no longer have that thing.

ok ok ok... stealing is not the right term.

No not really. Something can be copyrighted and yet downloaded legally. It could be copyrighted and downloaded legally for free. There is no law stating that copyrighted works may not be downloaded or transfered electronically. No such law on the books. Downloading is not illegal.

And neither did i say that... downloading is perfectly legal. But copying a DVD and putting it up for download without permission of the copyright holder is illegal, or not?

Copyright violation yes.

Well then

What you are doing is giving yet another rant against the RIAA. This is all well known now.

They claim regardless of copyright violation that all downloads are theft and violate their rights whether they have any or not. They even use legal downloads as an example of people that pirate. So it is only fair that we be allowed to also ignore copyright violation in this context. No? And in that context regardless of copyright violation there can be no illegal downloading. So instead of attacking downloading and those that do it the RIAA and frends would be much better off attacking copyright violators instead. Because after all it is the copyright violations that break the law. Not the downloading. Two different though sometimes related acts.

Well, what does this have to do with the original topic? No matter how bad someone else is, it does not justify your own wrongs. Not by one bit. As you said yourself, it is not right to violate copyright.

I did not say it is ok because the RIAA sucks. In all the words I have typed before in this thread the term "RIAA sucks" never appeared.
Dont try to get me on my choice of words, whether you call them weasels or something else doesnt really matter; from your posts it is clear that you dislike the RIAA (with reason of course). This does not add in any way to your arguments.

Then again neither is downloading copyrighted material wrong just because the RIAA/MPAA/BSA says so. I don't especially agree with the NRA alot. But one of their slogans is aplicable here in a moddified form. P2P networks don't break laws, people do. Or. Downloads don't break laws, people do.

Of course downloading can be legal, I never said it couldnt.

If we are going to discuss this lets use the right terminology. Using the same weasel words as the RIAA/MPAA/BSA only makes you look as foolish as them.
This is again not a very strong point of you. You are misusing terminology just as much as the RIAA. When *quickly* reading your posts, people might actually get the impression that you are OK with copyright violation, although this is not the message you are trying to communicate.

I do think we share the same opinion, but we have a different point of view... if that makes any sense at all.

dragongodz

29th August 2004, 15:41

stephanV - since geffroman has constantly asked for a rational discussion but chose(?) to ignore my actual arguements i ask you to please read my posts again. you agreed with his initial analogy, i refuted it and asked both of you to comment. neither of you have. instead there is just arguing over whatever Neo Neko types.

since this HAS basically turned in to a "lets argue with Neo Neko and disregard reasonable arguements by others" thread i wont bother to post in this again. truly a waste of time.

stephanV

29th August 2004, 16:02

@dragongodz:

I saw only one attempt of you refuting his anology in which you failed, it ended in RIAA ranting. you HAVE refuted the RIAA's methods (on which we agree), not the analogy itself.

BTW - not in anyway am i obligated to reply to you or any one else in this or any thread.

dragongodz

29th August 2004, 16:16

I saw only one attempt of you refuting his anology in which you failed, it ended in RIAA ranting.
how did i fail ? by showing that the analogy is flawed if the complainant illegally misleads the legal system ? how the hell is that ranting, where did i call the RIAA names or anything ? the ONLY thing i did was poiint out how they are using lies and half truths to break the law and violate peoples rights.

you HAVE refuted the RIAA's methods (on which we agree), not the analogy itself.
read what i typed above.

BTW - not in anyway am i obligated to reply to you or any one else in this or any thread.
oh and where exactly did i say you were ? i ASKED POLITELY(see the please in the request ?) twice if you could respond and give your thoughts. you could just as easily said you didnt want to. its you who is making a big deal out of someone asking for your opinion. well from your very little response i can see that it was a huge waste of effort just as this thread has turned out to be.

truly the last post.

stephanV

29th August 2004, 16:36

how do your thoughts differ significantly from neo neko's? i do not have to adress everybody seperately right?

again, you did not refute the analogy.

hmm and if accused him of stealing saying you had less flowers there after he walked past as proof and ignored that 100 other people walked past aswell what then ? you are purposly misleading the legal system to persecute 1 person. no he would not be right in stealing but you would also be wrong in making up stuff to have him arrested to start with. if this was proved in court any evidence found based on your lies would be made inadmissable. the RIAA are getting away with blue murder with this though.

you are suggesting that the RIAA is abusing the analogy. not the same thing.

anyway, there is no discussion anymore as we all agree. we're only not smart enough to realise it.

Phanton_13

29th August 2004, 18:40

the P2P and coping is not the problem is only the most obvius result, the problem is more deep and is in the consum society. this society make any people a buyer and pumping the peple with publicity making in it falses necessities, the pople if not have money to satisfy this necessities, it can search are more cheap metode to satisfy it. The most sugestionable gropu is the teeners nad is it the reason with they are the most copiers, but in the mature adults group the p2p don't have the same efects in the most cases the adults uses the p2p for search a good items for buy it. The software is a case appart, we only need a low number of programs, and we can satisface it wist a lot of open software, but the people tend to search a comercial product for thinking than they are better.

Sorry for my bad english

Nicholi

29th August 2004, 23:27

Wow I didn't even know Doom9 had such a thing as a general forum...

but after reading your post and seeing just how truly twisted you are...

*ohlawls*...this is my favorite part of the thread so far.

Wilbert

29th August 2004, 23:36

@Nicholi,

Do you also want to earn a strike? If you have nothing useful to add in this discussion, please don't participate.

Soulhunter

29th August 2004, 23:44

@ Wilbert

Fear...

Please don't close this (imo quite interesting) thread !!!

Maybe a small advice to calm down is already enough... :o

Bye

Nicholi

30th August 2004, 01:01

@Wilco
Hmm err yes, I likely should have posted something more I suppose. I don't real feel I have any sound arguments myself to start here as likely I'd just be told I was wrong.

Just find quality excuses to save P2P and let these weak arguments go...

I'm not sure how the topic of NetFlix suddenly popped in involving pirating either. Seems like someone is jumping ahead of themselves assuming things. As I'd think there are dozens of other names to bring up involving pirating much more popular then the name NetFlix.

Just following the conversation though before it went bad, I did like many of the arguments involving what the RIAA/MPAA should actually be attacking rather than what they are. Downloading is not illegal, it is the copyright violation involved which is. Downloading is not stealing.

I'd figure the main problem is that many people do label P2P and downloading as stealing because our concepts of such things as well as the legal system are still age-old and have little relevance dealing with digital and electronic matters. Am I right? I'm not that young but enough that my parents are still alive and thinking clearly, ever ask them such matters as these?

We have little precedence on a very number of matters of things dealing with todays ever growing 'online world', my lack of thinking of a better way to describe it. And eventually new terms I'm sure will be invented and new ideas formulated on the topics of digital copying.

We cannot use age-old ideas of theft. As someone pointed out theft involves a loss. A loss of what source? Obviously not physical in this case, so the RIAA/MPAA attempts to move off a loss of money. Thats all debatable I suppose but with their current movements as everyone says they are not attempting to find the truth in such matters.

It is quite childish and un-responsible to say, "I wouldn't have bought it anyways" in my opinion. If you aren't going to buy something in the first place, you should not have partaken of the enjoyment (or lack of enjoyment) by watching/listening/enter verb, of said material off of a P2P network. Just my opinion however...little importance here.

I wouldn't like to think P2P is just going to disappear in the future however because it can and will be misused as all tools are. It has many advantages I would think, most being the gathering of data from various people everywhere, and spreading such data. It is nice to think of P2P currently as a means of, as an example, Music Artists and such to spread their music to become more well known by potential fans everywhere. However that is not currently true in all aspects, I'm sure there are many people who do in fact "preview" said music/movie and then buy it. But I doubt they buy EVERYTHING they download in such a manner, but of course the ones they like the most.

Its all very confusing and new-age and blurry at the moment. Despite the fact people say its black and white. I say its quite different from all things in the past, and will need new innovated ways of dealing with such things. Never growing is not a good thing in my opinion. Much like this forum, the amalgamation of opinions and knowledge that continuely grows. Few things are absolute in this world, and without allowing new opinions and new information to spread through it you simply fade off and die.

[/end transmission]

neo75903

30th August 2004, 02:53

Originally posted by Nicholi
@Wilco
It is quite childish and un-responsible to say, "I wouldn't have bought it anyways" in my opinion. If you aren't going to buy something in the first place, you should not have partaken of the enjoyment (or lack of enjoyment) by watching/listening/enter verb, of said material off of a P2P network. Just my opinion however...little importance here.
[/end transmission]

I dont agree with this one. P2P has a more PR function for the artist. If i do enjoy the work i would go out and buy the CD. On the otherhand, it also prevents me from buying dissapointing CDs and discourages me to actually buy CDs in the near future.
I actually noticed myself more CDs then i did before.

For the record, to RIAA, you cannot count mp3s i have downloaded and finds it crap as a loss, i woulnd have bought the CD anyway.

Neo Neko

30th August 2004, 03:31

Originally posted by geffroman
Neo I thought I was through with this thread but you truly surprised me... I have loved this forum... I have learned so much... I have given back through my website free services anyway I could... I have donated lots of money to authors whos software I use as well as doom9... I have a ton of respect for the doom9 community... but after reading your post and seeing just how truly twisted you are... and the length at which you will stretch and mislead a simple truth to find some slimmy loophole to justify simple theft disgusts me...

Perhaps it is time to clarrify a bit. I like yourself have moral issues against freely and publicly sharring copyright materials outside of their license in general. I am not out to whosale condone that behavior. In fact just ask doobie or a few others and you will see that at one time I had an oppinion quite like yours. Infact there is a whole thread here somewhere discussing the whole issue of whether or not P2P is theft started by myself. At the time I was rather of the oppinion it was. Much like yourself. Clearly that is not my oppinion now. Which has arrisen from meaningfull discussions I have had with others and what I have learned from them.

I may have moral issues with publicly sharring copyrighted material. But morals are not laws. People are not required to comply with my morals. Under the laws sharing copyrighted material via P2P is at best classifyable as copyright infringement and not theft. I say at best because current laws and regulations were made without regard to what we now call the internet. And they can only be loosely applied here as this is an area in which they were not intended to be applied. This is the reason for so much of the turmoil we see on the subject. The actuall issues are being hammered out right now. So indeed this is no black and white situation. It is a giant grey area. There is no clearly illegal or legal position. As I said the laws are still being forged ATM. So don't get all huffy when people have oppinional differences with you on the subject.

I think it is enlightening to consider the history of musicians et all over the centuries. In the history of the earth human history is a blip. In human history the history of copyright is but a blip. So why ignore what is clearly the majority. Traditionally musicians and their instruments were the medium to express their creativity. Creativity was important to their job. But not protected. They made their living by their services. To play arround the camp fire for the tribe or to play for the king. The musician represented themselves. This is how things went for the majority of human history. Only in the last few centuries in europe and the US have artificial unnatural doctrines come to be known collectively as copyright. I say artificial and unnatural because copyright is not a natural right. It does not exist outside of governmental or perhaps societal enforcement. Copyright came into being to serve the intrests of publishers. Period. What is ironic is that initially the publisher and the artist were not so different entities. Which is hard to imagine in todays specialised publishing companies. Companies which don't realy create anything but hold all creative rights. Leaving artists and creators as redundant or secondary interests. Artists used to be able to support themselves by their tallent and skill. Now they must pander the the needs of a publisher. Which is a huge problem today. And we have copyright to blame.

Copyright is not sacred or moral right. In fact in todays environment copyright is actually abused more than it is used. It is actually rather outmoded. The Internet and related technologies allow individuals to publish themselves and reach worldwide audiences. Basically abolishing the need if there ever was one for large central publishing clearing houses. And in turn creating a need for massive copyright reform. No matter who you talk to today. Most will tell you copyright is broken. Consumers often complain the publishers have to much control. Publishers often complain that they don't have total control. Thing is copyright is not supposed to give total control to any one group.

Further copyright is not recognised everywhere. And even where it is recognised it is not uniform. Copyright is at best an imperfect. Hardly worth our reverence or moral support. There is no moral value tied to copyright.

I am not sure where you live. But you are going to have to get used to differing views and oppinions when dealing with such an international community as this. Some people here live in countries that don't provide their citizens with such basic rights as fair use. Others here live in countries where fair use type exceptions and clauses render copyright near innefective by our standards. Copyright is not holy or sacred. And most copyright violation is not that bad a thing. Just those where the violators profit monetarily etc. It's a huge grey area. And you are just going to have to deal with it. ;)

Neo Neko

30th August 2004, 03:48

Originally posted by Nicholi
It is quite childish and un-responsible to say, "I wouldn't have bought it anyways" in my opinion. If you aren't going to buy something in the first place, you should not have partaken of the enjoyment (or lack of enjoyment) by watching/listening/enter verb, of said material off of a P2P network. Just my opinion however...little importance here.

Actually that is quite an interesting point. You are correct that it can't be used as whosale justification. But that does not change the fact that it is a fact. An important fact that the encumbants are more than happy to ignore. Saying that you should have a copy of something since you were not going to buy it anyway is indeed a flawed argument. But surely something could be done to reduce the problem or even turn it to a benefit. We don't directly pay for broadcast TV. However we can get it and record it and it's copyrighted content legally for free. We already have internet radio. Perhaps P2P will be the future medium for internet radio and internet TV. All they have to do is stop attacking it and embrace it to make it work for them. It is after all what their customers want. No what they are trying to demand.

P0l1m0rph1c

30th August 2004, 08:54

Back to the original analogy.

What about if the old lady whose been stolen some flowers claimed to the police that the guy pointed a gun to her head, and stole her MUCH more than just some flowers? And she'd actually make him spend 3 years instead of 15 days in jail (just comparation). Would that be legal too? That would be as bad or worse than actually stealing flowers.

That's what the RIAA is doing...

stephanV

30th August 2004, 15:07

Originally posted by neo75903
I don't agree with this one. P2P has a more PR function for the artist.

This is not true, only if the artist himself releases the material on P2P it would have a PR function. But how many artists out there do this? P2P *could* have a PR function though, it is extremely well equiped for that. :)

Originally posted by Neo Neko
This is how things went for the majority of human history.
You cannot use "tradition" as argument. That it for the majority of human history was OK to have slaves, does it mean it should be OK now?

Copyright came into being to serve the intrests of publishers.
Not entirely, you could see the earliest form of copyright when painters started to sign their work. Copyright is first of all (or should be) a claim of originality, which is the true goal of artists.

Thing is copyright is not supposed to give total control to any one group.
It should give total control to the artist, though. Only they should have the right to determine what happens with their work. Not the consumer, not the RIAA, not the publishers.

Most will tell you copyright is broken.
It is severly broken yes.

Further copyright is not recognised everywhere. And even where it is recognised it is not uniform.
Thats just how the world works. :)

Copyright is at best an imperfect. Hardly worth our reverence or moral support. There is no moral value tied to copyright.
Not in is present form no... however, i do think artists need a way to protects their creations. And in its current form, I don't see P2P helping artists doing that. I know plenty of people who download music and movies without having the intend of buying them (so it is used not as PR function).

Doobie

30th August 2004, 19:06

Originally posted by geffroman
[B]You would be right if this was a filming of a Play or an illegal recording of a Rock concert... But in fact the Movie is the product... Not the performance...

I was talking about music in my previous post. But, the same applies to movies. P2P are just copies, not theft that deprives anyone of something that was theirs. Nor is copyright law built of the concept of theft.

In the case of movies, the performance is in the theater and this is where the studios should count on making their money - in their own venue.

Just find quality excuses to save P2P and let these weak arguments go... They only work when singing to the choir... and they HURT the cause when making them to anyone not vested with an interest...

It's an ironclad argument that copyright violations are not theft. And, I don't see how it's helpful to help the RIAA say "Even P2P users call it theft."

stephanV

30th August 2004, 19:09

Originally posted by Doobie
In the case of movies, the performance is in the theater and this is where the studios should count on making their money - in their own venue.

yet another false argument. how does this in any way justify violating copyright? where studios decide to make their money is their choice. Movies are not explicitly to be shown in theaters.

Mug Funky

30th August 2004, 19:46

hmmm. flowers. love 'em.

this has been done to death, but i'll correct the flower analogy for you.

your mum has a flower shop.

there is a meadow in the park across the road from the flower shop. by a strange physical anomaly, it backs onto the backyards of every resident in town. also, there are signs up freely inviting people to come and pick these flowers, which for the most part are as good quality as those that your mum sells.

is it theft to pick some flowers instead of buying them in the shop? or should your mum give up and move somewhere there aren't any free flowers?

semantics aside, we've all got to remember why copyright came about.

people wanted to be able to make a living off their art, and that would be compromised if some git goes out and copies your stuff, or steals your ideas and profits from them. copyright basically provides a means to prevent this happening, and thus enhance culture by encouraging more art to be produced.

if copyright is pushed too far however, it will stifle cultural advancement.

here's where the problems for RIAA's credibility come. if they can't prove they're losing money as a result of p2p use, then they can't put the case that artists aren't being compensated fairly for their work because of piracy.

so therefore, they can't justify increasing copyright restrictions in the hope that it will encourage cultural advancement, and at this point, any increase in copyright restrictions will most probably hurt culture rather than help it.

there's a fine balance that needs to be struck, but nobody with vested interests (either way) will want balance. it's all or nothing in most cases. the MPAA and the RIAA childishly want absolute control over their IP (which they didn't even create you understand), and hardcore p2p users want these organisations to reserve no rights whatsoever.

so long as people on both sides are motivated by greed, p2p will never be what it could be, and copyright law will get worse and worse until nobody can move freely or creatively. we'll all suffer from that.

Neo Neko

30th August 2004, 20:23

Originally posted by stephanV
This is not true, only if the artist himself releases the material on P2P it would have a PR function. But how many artists out there do this? P2P *could* have a PR function though, it is extremely well equiped for that. :)

The artist does not have to be involved for something to be PR. PR is simply how they are represented to the public. I could go out on a street corner and shout out my love for something. That is technically PR for it. Unofficial as it may be. It is still a form of PR.

Originally posted by stephanV
You cannot use "tradition" as argument. That it for the majority of human history was OK to have slaves, does it mean it should be OK now?

No because there is a moral issue at the heart of that discussion. There is no moral issue at the heart of copyright. Further you talk about slavery as if it is always a bad thing. Frankly in the context of history there have been beneficial instances of slavery. A recent example would be those that went into indentured sevitude to pay their way to the americas. And while the life of a slave or servant might not appeal to us today in the past being a servant or a slave could mean a stable, simple, and relatively comfortable life as opposed the day to day hardships trying to make a life on the streets. Frankly though like copyright, slavery has been abused more than it was used in recent history. This however does not negate using tradition as an argument as you claim. Tradition is a powerfull argument. Especially when you don't ignore the context as you have done.

Originally posted by stephanV
Not entirely, you could see the earliest form of copyright when painters started to sign their work.

Copyright? Hardly. It was in no way legaly enforceable. And provided none of the benefits commonly associated with copyright. Putting a name on something is hardly a credible mark of ownership either. This is part of the reason copyright or owner recognition scheems were created. So that you had something more than a single persons word to go on. It still does not eliminate the possibility of hijacking of creative works. But it does reduce it unlike signing a name to something.

Originally posted by stephanV
Copyright is first of all (or should be) a claim of originality, which is the true goal of artists.

Don't you find it odd then that those who hold most of the copyrights did nothing to originate any of those works?

Originally posted by stephanV
It should give total control to the artist, though. Only they should have the right to determine what happens with their work. Not the consumer, not the RIAA, not the publishers.

Pattently false. No one should nor will ever be able to have total control. Copyright is an agreement between the consumer and the creator for mutual benefit. If one party should have total control the benefit of the other would surely suffer. In fact if any one group should have "more" control it should be the consumer. Because without the consumer the creator would have no market and no rights. Remember consumers don't need to buy a creators creations. A creator does however need to sell his creations to make a living. Consumers are not slaves to the creators.

Originally posted by stephanV
Not in is present form no... however, i do think artists need a way to protects their creations. And in its current form, I don't see P2P helping artists doing that. I know plenty of people who download music and movies without having the intend of buying them (so it is used not as PR function).

False. It is imperfect true. But most of the things I have downloaded and kept I went out an purchased. For instance Hell Boy. I missed it in theaters. I only make it to the theaters one or two times a year at best on average. I downloaded someones crappy handicam version of the film. I liked the film so much that I was there the day it was released to purchase it. Had it not been for that downloaded version I would have likely forgotten about it and quite possibly never purchased it.

Remember that copyright is not absolute. Consumers have rights as well.

stephanV

30th August 2004, 21:57

Originally posted by Mug Funky
hmmm. flowers. love 'em.
this has been done to death, but i'll correct the flower analogy for you.

Lets throw away analogies... we don't really need them anyway.

Say you are an artist and make music for a living. Do you think it is fair that people copy your CDs and then distribute them for free?

Originally posted by Neo Neko
The artist does not have to be involved for something to be PR. PR is simply how they are represented to the public. I could go out on a street corner and shout out my love for something. That is technically PR for it. Unofficial as it may be. It is still a form of PR.
This is completely false, if anyone should be involved in the PR of his products it is the artist himself. There is such a thing as unwanted publicity. That you think it is ok to bypass the artists like this only shows your disrepect for them.

No because there is a moral issue at the heart of that discussion. There is no moral issue at the heart of copyright. Further you talk about slavery as if it is always a bad thing. Frankly in the context of history there have been beneficial instances of slavery. A recent example would be those that went into indentured sevitude to pay their way to the americas. And while the life of a slave or servant might not appeal to us today in the past being a servant or a slave could mean a stable, simple, and relatively comfortable life as opposed the day to day hardships trying to make a life on the streets.

First of all, indentured servitude is not the same as slavery. But i wont go deeper into that.

But of course there is a "moral" issue at the heart of copyright. The issue is if an act of creativity is something that should be protected OR that it can be (ab)used by everyone. The answer to that cannot be given by logic or reason, therefor it is already moralistic. In its current form copyright might still be prone to abuse, but that there is no "moral" heart... i think there is.

Copyright? Hardly. It was in no way legaly enforceable. And provided none of the benefits commonly associated with copyright. Putting a name on something is hardly a credible mark of ownership either. This is part of the reason copyright or owner recognition scheems were created. So that you had something more than a single persons word to go on. It still does not eliminate the possibility of hijacking of creative works. But it does reduce it unlike signing a name to something.
I called it the *earliest* form. You almost made it look like claims on ownership of art didnt excist before "copyright" came into being. This is completely false. You called it an artifical and unnatural right. Every single right we have is artificial and unnatural (which is the same)... If I wanted to kill someone, why would that be wrong? Not because of my natural rights; nature actually puts me in a position that allows me to do so. It are in fact artificial laws that forbids me to do it. They may have excisted for a whole lot longer than copyright, but they are artificial no doubt. Morals are artificial too BTW. Arms and legs, those are natural things (for most humans anyway).

Don't you find it odd then that those who hold most of the copyrights did nothing to originate any of those works?
So the true issue lies there, and not in copyright itself.

Pattently false. No one should nor will ever be able to have total control. Copyright is an agreement between the consumer and the creator for mutual benefit. If one party should have total control the benefit of the other would surely suffer. In fact if any one group should have "more" control it should be the consumer. Because without the consumer the creator would have no market and no rights. Remember consumers don't need to buy a creators creations. A creator does however need to sell his creations to make a living. Consumers are not slaves to the creators.
And this is where you go wrong. The only group that should have control over what happens with their content ARE the artists. The consumer can then decide if they agree with those terms or not. It is not a right to watch movies or to listen to music: it is a privilege for which you, in most cases, have to pay. Of course that doesnt mean that the consumers are slaves to the creators. The terms on which the works will be sold are indirectly determined by consumers, because they can always choose not to buy. But choosing not to buy is also choosing not to see/listen. And this is where P2P in many cases breaks the rules.

False. It is imperfect true. But most of the things I have downloaded and kept I went out an purchased. For instance Hell Boy. I missed it in theaters. I only make it to the theaters one or two times a year at best on average. I downloaded someones crappy handicam version of the film. I liked the film so much that I was there the day it was released to purchase it. Had it not been for that downloaded version I would have likely forgotten about it and quite possibly never purchased it.
Ah... yet another "succes"-story of P2P as an instrument of PR. But how many people decided to keep the content and *not* purchased it? In fact, you are even admitting there you kept stuff and didnt purchase it afterwards. I don't know how many more there are, you don't know. Are they there? Most certainly yes. That *you* decided to do the "right" thing (in most cases) doesn't mean everybody else does. That P2P can be used for promotional activities, no doubt. But if it is, it should be with permission of the copyright holder, and not by some totally uncontrolled way, which is very sensitive to abuse.

Originally posted by Mug Funky
there's a fine balance that needs to be struck, but nobody with vested interests (either way) will want balance. it's all or nothing in most cases. the MPAA and the RIAA childishly want absolute control over their IP (which they didn't even create you understand), and hardcore p2p users want these organisations to reserve no rights whatsoever.
A balance... that sounds good :)

Neo Neko

31st August 2004, 03:09

Originally posted by stephanV
Say you are an artist and make music for a living. Do you think it is fair that people copy your CDs and then distribute them for free?

Within reason yes. Indeed as a creative person I would have no problem with that by and large. I am even contemplating a way of doing just that myself. Giving it away "for free" but deriving a profit from it equal to or greater than what traditional methods would allow. I already have the whole system worked out. I am at this point simply talking with developers and looking for developers to help me construct the system. Once it is done I plan to pitch the system to the bottleneck of IP the traditional publishers and offer my services for a fee. In the coming world current copyright dogma has little relevance.

Originally posted by stephanV
This is completely false, if anyone should be involved in the PR of his products it is the artist himself. There is such a thing as unwanted publicity. That you think it is ok to bypass the artists like this only shows your disrepect for them.

That you think that only shows you misunderstand. No one is implying that artist should not involve themselves in their PR. But it is highly naieve for you to think that they can totally controll or involve themselves in every aspect of their PR. That is a task that not even the gigantic mega publishers can not accomplish and yet you ascribe that a single person can? To live in your world and see such wonders as you. Truly the real is a pale reflection of fantasy at best.

Originally posted by stephanV
First of all, indentured servitude is not the same as slavery. But i wont go deeper into that.

Actually it is. But there is a matter of degree. That there is a matter of degree does not mean it is inaplicable or irrelevant.

Originally posted by stephanV
But of course there is a "moral" issue at the heart of copyright. The issue is if an act of creativity is something that should be protected OR that it can be (ab)used by everyone.

That is your moral oppinion and not some fact. Did morals similar to yours give rise to copyright or are your morals derived from copyright? Not to say that they are bad etc. But perhaps short sighted. Why is it that most cultures do not share some construct rudimentary as it may be of copyright? It may be common among the mightiest and most wide spread cultures. But when did might ever make right?

Originally posted by stephanV
The answer to that cannot be given by logic or reason, therefor it is already moralistic. In its current form copyright might still be prone to abuse, but that there is no "moral" heart... i think there is.

Inability to see or understand the logic does not preclude existance. Similarly technology would seem like magic to primitive people. That does not mean it has no logical explanation complex though it may be. Morals liken more to magic or superstition. Laws gravitate more to the scientific. In the scientific there is always some logic.

Originally posted by stephanV
I called it the *earliest* form. You almost made it look like claims on ownership of art didnt excist before "copyright" came into being. This is completely false.

Hardly. Before copyright or similar systems a claim of ownership was no solid proof. Even in the age of copyright it is still not iron clad. Copyright seeks to aleviate the he said she said issue and provide witnesses who can verrify the verrasity of a claim. This however does not deny false witness. But it is better than nothing. If a name is all it took I would but to have put my name to the world. Then creation would be mine regardless.

Originally posted by stephanV
You called it an artifical and unnatural right. Every single right we have is artificial and unnatural (which is the same)...

Laws agains killing people and stealing property seem to exist in almost every culture. They would seem very basic and natural laws for the formation of any society. Copyright is an artificial construct that arrises out of society that is not basic to it's continued existance. The world as we know it would not end on the abolishment of copyright. Not like if we all kill and stole from eachother.

Originally posted by stephanV
If I wanted to kill someone, why would that be wrong? Not because of my natural rights; nature actually puts me in a position that allows me to do so. It are in fact artificial laws that forbids me to do it. They may have excisted for a whole lot longer than copyright, but they are artificial no doubt. Morals are artificial too BTW. Arms and legs, those are natural things (for most humans anyway).

In communities murder and theft have always been taboo. It is the basis for building sucessful communities. This can even be seen in nature. Violence is not removed. But you don't often see packs of wolves killing their own. There is a natural strength in numbers. And though animals do not share our sense of property and ownership they have such concepts none the less. They often have territory. And if stolen they is often conflict over it. However they don't create anything and don't protect creation. Creation is secondary to society and not fundimental.

Originally posted by stephanV
And this is where you go wrong. The only group that should have control over what happens with their content ARE the artists. The consumer can then decide if they agree with those terms or not.

This is to ritch! LOL. And just who do you think gives the artist rights? Artists are nothing without us. And I as an artist am nothing without my audience. I am having trouble finding a cogent euphamism to describe the situation you propose.

Originally posted by stephanV
It is not a right to watch movies or to listen to music:

Yes it is. It is an unspoken right. Even prisoners in federal pound you in the arse prison still get to watch movies and listen to music. There is no law on the books that takes away someones ability and right to listen or watch.

Originally posted by stephanV
it is a privilege for which you, in most cases, have to pay.

I don't directly pay for TV and radio so what you talkin' bout willis? I use those more than I buy CDs or DVDs. And for the things TV and radio will not expose me to (since some bigwig deems it unproffitable) I use the internet and related technologies.

Originally posted by stephanV
Of course that doesnt mean that the consumers are slaves to the creators.

Well if as you claim that creators/publishers should have total controll one of two things would happen. The industry as we know it would collapse or we would end up with a topsy turvy slave class subject to the whims of publishers. Remember "Power corrupts. Absolute power corrupts absolutely.". And yet you would have them obtain it anyway.

Originally posted by stephanV
The terms on which the works will be sold are indirectly determined by consumers, because they can always choose not to buy. But choosing not to buy is also choosing not to see/listen. And this is where P2P in many cases breaks the rules.

First of all the consumer has very little controll over pricing terms. Evidence of this can be seen at any retail outlet. Price any one album at all local stores and see how much it varries from place to place. Then find the average album price at each store and see how much it varries. Next take those album prices and try to cattegorise them into one of 4 or 5 groups based on exact price. And if that does not convince you then simply look in the major news outlets in the past several years to look at all the suits leveled against the big publishers for price fixing/price gouging/collusion. Once you have read all those then read about their most recent settlement and how they have behaved totally in bad faith doing exactly what they were not supposed to do dumping the stock they see as unprofitable on the general public as payment for their wrongs. They just can't loose.

Originally posted by stephanV
Ah... yet another "succes"-story of P2P as an instrument of PR. But how many people decided to keep the content and *not* purchased it? I don't know, you don't know. Are they there? Most certainly yes. That *you* decided to do the "right" thing doesn't mean everybody else does. That P2P can be used for promotional activities, it can. But if it is, it should be with permission of the copyright holder. And not by some totally uncontrolled way, which is very sensitive to abuse.

I almost completely agree with you on those subjects. But I think it is important to mention that studdies that ignore that group, say any study ever done or funded by the RIAA/MPAA/BSA/MICROSOFT is utter propaganda with no factual context or basis worth catching anyones interest. Frankly I have more faith in the average joe to do the right thing than I do the major publishers. And since changing the majority of peoples behavior is never going to happen we are going to have to legalize alot of this behavior or find a way to jail larger portions of society.

int 21h

31st August 2004, 07:48

Few points, then I'll let you two get back at it..

Indentured servitude is actually a precursor to slavery. If you look at colonial America's history, indentured servitude was introduced when England had little work, and the colonies had great need for agricultural labor. Indentured servitude is not slavery for several key reasons. The first reason is that indentured servants generally could work off their debt and be freed. Not only that but most colonies granted the servant a healthy portion of land and a gun upon completing their debt (white man or black man). Slaves very rarely were freed, and more often than not spent their entire lives enslaved. Very, very few servants spent their entire life indentured. Another reason indentured servitude is different than slavery is the fact that nobody was ever born into being an indentured servant. However, any child born to a woman in slavery was automatically a slave as well. Finally, most indentured servants entered into the agreement willingly. In the 1700s however, all servants imported into the colonies, not Christians in their native country, were automatically considered slaves.

Originally posted by Neo Neko
...However they don't create anything and don't protect creation. Creation is secondary to society and not fundimental....
There are several examples in nature of animals protecting that which they create: their offspring. The North American grizzly bear for instance has been known to kill a man that came between it and its cub.

The original purpose of copyright is quite clear. In fact if you flip open a copy of the American constitution, and scan down Article I, until you get to Section 8 (http://www.house.gov/Constitution/Constitution.html), you can find out what that purpose is....

"Clause 8: To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;"

There you have it... the most interesting thing about this clause that most educated people will point out is that this clause is the only clause that specifically lays out the purpose of the powers. All of the other powers, military, money, declaring war, none of their clauses specify to what end these powers should be used. But the clause that established copyright in the United States, specifically states that the power should be used to 'promote the progress of science and useful arts'.

To truly find the purpose, we need to look back into history, specifically European history. Shortly after Gutenberg invented the printing press, it was introduced in England. The king of England had a big problem with the printing press and specifically books, he couldn't control them. Fortunately, the booksellers' guild had a great interest in controlling what books were published. So, in 1557, the king and the booksellers' guild teamed up... the king agreed that all books must be registered with the guild, and that any book not published in accordance with this was 'unlawful'. The law even went so far as to assign extra policemen to search out and destroy these 'unlawful' books. This effectively created both the first censorship in print and a monopoly.

The founding fathers hated nothing more than monopolies. The entire idea of being independent was getting away from the monarchy of England which in itself was a monopoly of power. However, the founding fathers also hated censorship. So, like many other checks and balances of America, copyright was born. Its two fold purpose is to guarantee artists a secure place to share their creation, and at the same time guaranteeing that the security does not go so far as to create a monopolistic situation.

For many years copyright was functioning correctly, then Congress and President Clinton decided to break it in the 1990s. First, in 1997, the NET (No Electronic Theft) act was passed. This changed what was considered criminal copyright infringement. Before this act, criminal infringement was considered the distribution of copyrighted materials with the intent of making a profit, after this act, criminal infringement is simply the distribution of copyrighted materials whose value is $1000 or more. On October 21st, 1998, Bill Clinton signed into law the Copyright Term Extension act. This greatly affected the amount of material in the public domain. Now copyright of materials no longer lasts the original life of author + 50, but life of author + 75, with + 95 years in the case of corporate works. Then a week later, perhaps the straw that broke the Copyright camel's back: Bill Clinton signed into law the DMCA. The DMCA makes the circumvention of ANY protection of copyright illegal, regardless of the intent of the circumvention. And so now, the scale has tipped, effectively creating the IP monopoly that the founding fathers were seeking to prevent.

Turning a blind eye to the legislative reasons copyright was broken, the American judicial system also helped break copyright with several key rulings. The Kinkos case in 1991 (New York City federal court ruled Kinkos infringed copyright by not securing permission to photocopy course packets for the local university) & the 1994 Texaco case (copies of journals and articles were made for Texaco researchers, purely interested in moving forward with scientific principles, the owners of the journals sued Texaco, the court, all the way to the federal appeal level, sided with the owners, saying that copying was not fair use, Texaco later settled out of court with the owners), these rulings were both key findings that allowed publishers to more narrowly define fair use.

[edit: grammatical issues repaired. return 0;]

Neo Neko

31st August 2004, 09:23

Originally posted by int 21h
There are several examples in nature of animals protecting that which they create: their offspring. The North American grizzly bear for instance has been known to kill a man that came between it and its cub.

That has nothing to do with copyright. At least not yet. A child or offspring is not considered a creative or artistic work. But if biomedical companies are continually allowed to pattent or copyright their discoveries. Well then it is not inconcievable that at some point in the future you will have to pay royalties to have a child. But for now that is not even close to creation in the same sense that copyright would protect. Now if you had proposed a polarbear doodling in the permafrost with it's urine that would be much closer. But AFAIK not something that has ever happened. :D

Originally posted by int 21h
The original purpose of copyright is quite clear....

The rest of you post does not tell me anything I was not already aware of. But you did an excelent job of simply and succinctly summarising it for those who were not. You did have some awful long sentances there towards the end though. ;) :p

int 21h

31st August 2004, 11:08

Originally posted by Neo Neko
That has nothing to do with copyright. At least not yet. A child or offspring is not considered a creative or artistic work. But if biomedical companies are continually allowed to pattent or copyright their discoveries. Well then it is not inconcievable that at some point in the future you will have to pay royalties to have a child. But for now that is not even close to creation in the same sense that copyright would protect. Now if you had proposed a polarbear doodling in the permafrost with it's urine that would be much closer. But AFAIK not something that has ever happened. :D

The fees in China for having a second child are very close... You are in essence paying the government for the right to use your reproductive organs (its almost as if the government has patented reproductive sex, pleasure sex is still free as in beer) but this is getting way OT :p

Originally posted by Neo Neko
The rest of you post does not tell me anything I was not already aware of. But you did an excelent job of simply and succinctly summarising it for those who were not. You did have some awful long sentances there towards the end though. ;) :p

Little bit unclear in my direction, I was directing that to the entire audience, especially anyone who doesn't grasp the original intent behind the idea (not specifically you).

stephanV

31st August 2004, 12:30

Originally posted by Neo Neko
Within reason yes. Indeed as a creative person I would have no problem with that by and large. I am even contemplating a way of doing just that myself. Giving it away "for free" but deriving a profit from it equal to or greater than what traditional methods would allow. I already have the whole system worked out. I am at this point simply talking with developers and looking for developers to help me construct the system. Once it is done I plan to pitch the system to the bottleneck of IP the traditional publishers and offer my services for a fee. In the coming world current copyright dogma has little relevance.

Bla, bla, bla... seriously...

That you think that only shows you misunderstand. No one is implying that artist should not involve themselves in their PR. But it is highly naieve for you to think that they can totally controll or involve themselves in every aspect of their PR. That is a task that not even the gigantic mega publishers can not accomplish and yet you ascribe that a single person can? To live in your world and see such wonders as you. Truly the real is a pale reflection of fantasy at best.
Where did i say the artists should do all the advertising by themselves. I DID say he should have control over what should happen with his creations. How many people he wants to involve in advertising those is then totally up to him. YOU are bypassing the artist and are fine with that. That is something different.

That is your moral oppinion and not some fact. Did morals similar to yours give rise to copyright or are your morals derived from copyright? Not to say that they are bad etc. But perhaps short sighted.

These comments mean actually nothing. Give real points and don't try to provoke people. Perhaps', maybes what do they all really mean? An opinion is never a fact. All you do is spitting out yours, should i ignore it for that?

Why is it that most cultures do not share some construct rudimentary as it may be of copyright? It may be common among the mightiest and most wide spread cultures. But when did might ever make right?
It doesn't, but it doesn't make it wrong either. You were bringing up tradition as a point against copyright, now you're suggesting that the wide-spreadness could ALSO be against it. I find that at least a bit strange. But then again, this is no point at all.

Inability to see or understand the logic does not preclude existance.
LOL Neko, dont give me a lesson in logic. Logic only exist by the shear existance of the above sentence (which is also its biggest flaw, as it leads to some sort of obscure form of circular reasoning). But since you have it all figured out, give me a logical explanation. If you fail to do so (which you have), you cannot say there is no "moral" heart. You do not understand the logic yourself, so how can you claim that there is one?

Laws gravitate more to the scientific.
Completely false, laws are mainly based on morals. Natural laws dont need to be enforced. Its not like we were all floating around before Newton was there.

In the scientific there is always some logic.

Well, yes. In the scientific there is... that's true.

Hardly. Before copyright or similar systems a claim of ownership was no solid proof. Even in the age of copyright it is still not iron clad. Copyright seeks to aleviate the he said she said issue and provide witnesses who can verrify the verrasity of a claim. This however does not deny false witness. But it is better than nothing. If a name is all it took I would but to have put my name to the world. Then creation would be mine regardless.
You fail to see the point. It is not neglectable because it could not be used as solid proof or enforced by law. Heck, one sentense later you even admit copyright is not hard solid proof. So how do they differ really?

Laws agains killing people and stealing property seem to exist in almost every culture. They would seem very basic and natural laws for the formation of any society.

There are several cultures where violence was/is adorated. The Roman empire was one for example.

Copyright is an artificial construct that arrises out of society that is not basic to it's continued existance. The world as we know it would not end on the abolishment of copyright. Not like if we all kill and stole from eachother.
That would not end the world as we know it either. All humanity is responsible for is (mass-)murder and stealing. Truely, those are our "greatest" contributions to this world, and to each other.

This can even be seen in nature. Violence is not removed. But you don't often see packs of wolves killing their own.

Actually you do. Only the alpha male and female are allowed to have offspring, all others get "removed". Lions kill all offspring too when they take over a pride or even kill offsping of other big cats.

Creation is secondary to society and not fundimental.
uhm... society could not even have existed without creation... society is even a creation itself. There is no basic form of society, although there might be some common characteristics each society has.

This is to ritch! LOL. And just who do you think gives the artist rights? Artists are nothing without us. And I as an artist am nothing without my audience. I am having trouble finding a cogent euphamism to describe the situation you propose.

That's because you are misunderstanding it again.

Yes it is. It is an unspoken right. Even prisoners in federal pound you in the arse prison still get to watch movies and listen to music. There is no law on the books that takes away someones ability and right to listen or watch.
No, but there are laws against sneeking into theatres and the like. You chose not to pay, so you chose not to watch... its a very simple concept. And BTW - you dont think prisoners get to see movies, because it is their "right", right?

I don't directly pay for TV and radio so what you talkin' bout willis? I use those more than I buy CDs or DVDs.

It's funny seeing you use media of which you have absolutlely no control on what is broadcasted... and then that you are actually paying for it (be it indirectly).

Well if as you claim that creators/publishers should have total controll one of two things would happen. The industry as we know it would collapse or we would end up with a topsy turvy slave class subject to the whims of publishers. Remember "Power corrupts. Absolute power corrupts absolutely.". And yet you would have them obtain it anyway.
No power is absolute, thats nonsense. Both above scenarios seem very unlikely to me. Don't feed me silly quotes.

They just can't loose.

If they lost we wouldnt have anything watch right (at least not for a while). This should not be a "them against us" discussion. Listen to Mug Funky: balance.

And since changing the majority of peoples behavior is never going to happen we are going to have to legalize alot of this behavior or find a way to jail larger portions of society.
So we should just legalise it because it is already happening? Then there are a whole lot more things that could be legalised. The form has to change a lot before it is acceptable to legalise.

Ow, wait a sec... remember the wide-spreadness you were talking about earlier? You used it in the exact opposite way, thats rather... funny. Tradition, wide-spreadness... those are never arguments, but still you succeed in contradiciting yourself with them.

This is BTW my last contribution to this thread. Unless someone has something original and coherent to say.

O wait, i just heard geffroman was threatened with suspension, maybe ill continue anyway. if you can be insulting, we can be too

Neo Neko

31st August 2004, 21:14

Originally posted by stephanV
Bla, bla, bla... seriously...

I am 100% serious on that.

Originally posted by stephanV
Where did i say the artists should do all the advertising by themselves. I DID say he should have control over what should happen with his creations. How many people he wants to involve in advertising those is then totally up to him. YOU are bypassing the artist and are fine with that. That is something different.

Every time I mention that the artist can never have complete control you somehow get offended. Face it. It's a fact. The can't control everything. Not advertising. Not copying. And yes I am ok with that.

Originally posted by stephanV
These comments mean actually nothing. Give real points and don't try to provoke people. Perhaps', maybes what do they all really mean? An opinion is never a fact. All you do is spitting out yours, should i ignore it for that?

Well I was hoping you could come to it on your own. To much I guess. Your moral views on the subject and even mine are derived from todays concept of copyright. They are not the basis of copyright. Your concept that the creator should have full control would not have flown before those that created copyright. Your concept as int21h pointed out was exactly what the founding fathers here desired to avoid.

Originally posted by stephanV
It doesn't, but it doesn't make it wrong either. You were bringing up tradition as a point against copyright, now you're suggesting that the wide-spreadness could ALSO be against it. I find that at least a bit strange. But then again, this is no point at all.

Actually it is a point. Again you simply miss it. Copyright concepts are extremely rare throughout human history. Further they are still rare today amongst most societies. Even those societies create artisticly. Apparently the concept of copyright is not crucial, usefull, or natural to human societies.

Originally posted by stephanV
LOL Neko, dont give me a lesson in logic. Logic only exist by the shear existance of the above sentence (which is also its biggest flaw, as it leads to some sort of obscure form of circular reasoning). But since you have it all figured out, give me a logical explanation. If you fail to do so (which you have), you cannot say there is no "moral" heart. You do not understand the logic yourself, so how can you claim that there is one?

I think int21h already quoted it for you
Clause 8: To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries

There is definatly logic in that for everyone. Unfortunatly copyright today is only logical for the publishers. The only way consumers can understand and live with the perversion of copyright today is to say that it is their moral duty.

Originally posted by stephanV
Completely false, laws are mainly based on morals. Natural laws dont need to be enforced. Its not like we were all floating around before Newton was there.

That's just silly. Now you are confusing laws of physics and nature with human laws. Almost all human laws have a basis in logic. That does not preclude coinciding with morals as well. There are even a few odd laws that have no logical basis. For instance in Kansas City Mo. area where I live having a bathtub with feet shaped like animal paws is technically "illegal". That could only at best be an example of a pure moral law like you describe. There is no other way to make good sense of that. But because there is little or no logic to that law it is basically impossible to enforce. The world would actually be a bad place if all laws and rules were based on morals alone.

Originally posted by stephanV
You fail to see the point. It is not neglectable because it could not be used as solid proof or enforced by law. Heck, one sentense later you even admit copyright is not hard solid proof. So how do they differ really?

One is me saying "it's mine" and you just have to take my word. The other is someone you trust who has done some rudamentary research on the subject and can say with some certainty that it is mine. They are similar concepts. Basic proof of ownership if you will. But still quite different in both what they show and what they provide.

Originally posted by stephanV
There are several cultures where violence was/is adorated. The Roman empire was one for example.

Hardly. Roman violence as you call it equates to football ot hockey matches of today. They were of course more violent. But it was not neighbor killing neighbor. In fact I am quite certain that was abhored by them. And indeed if caught and found guilty would earn you a spot on deck for the lions den.

Originally posted by stephanV
Actually you do. Only the alpha male and female are allowed to have offspring, all others get "removed". Lions kill all offspring too when they take over a pride or even kill offsping of other big cats.

Not a proper example. In chalangeing the alpha male of any species it is actually rather rare that anyone dies. In fact there is such a conflict going on over in our society right now. "Will Bush the current alpha male retain his position or will Kerry or another challenger take over as top dog.".

Originally posted by stephanV
uhm... society could not even have existed without creation... society is even a creation itself. There is no basic form of society, although there might be some common characteristics each society has.

And copyright is not one of them. That is the point you seem to be missing. I am not saying creation is unnecessary. Just that copyright is not necessary.

Originally posted by stephanV
That's because you are misunderstanding it again.

In what way. You say the creator/copyright holder should have total control. Not only is that wrong it is ludicrous. Without an audience willing to consume copyright has no value. This is the situation we are rapidly approaching. Many people are increasingly unwilling to consume under the current conditions copyright holders are imposing. It is the consumers that give copyright it's true power.

Originally posted by stephanV
No, but there are laws against sneeking into theatres and the like.

Yes but (and now this is key) they paid to get in. They did not sneak in. And in fact there are no laws against taking a camera, camcorder, or even a laptop into a theater. Further there are no laws against taking them in and using them. That is not what they are nabbing people on. They are nabbing them on the premise that they are doing this to later distribute it free over the internet and that this somehow hurts them. And while I agree that most people currently do this to distribute over P2P the jury is still out over whether or not anyone is actually getting hurt. They are however at the very least violating copyright. And that is the best to date that has been shown.

Originally posted by stephanV
You chose not to pay, so you chose not to watch... its a very simple concept.

There are so many instances in life where this does not apply. Just a simple fact that you can never have total control. And that things like that are going to happen. You just have to live with it.

Originally posted by stephanV
And BTW - you dont think prisoners get to see movies, because it is their "right", right?

To a large extent yes. Some of them even get the privelage to have their own TV or radio. Like I said it is rather unspoken. And there is no absolute guideline. But it is there. Something to do with humane treatment. Kinda like allowing muslim fundamentalists to have a copy of the koran etc.

Originally posted by stephanV
It's funny seeing you use media of which you have absolutlely no control on what is broadcasted... and then that you are actually paying for it (be it indirectly).

Not funny at all. Like I said I don't pay for it directly. But I find the indirect terms of payment generably more agreeable that those for direct payment to CD or DVD publishers. That is more what this is about. People are getting less and less willing to subject themselves to the terms copyright holders are trying to extract. And there are new metods avalible that are capable to serve the consumers in the fashion they wish. Save for the fact that the publishers don't want to change. Conflict ensues. Customers want new products and services at reasonable prices and publishers want the consumers to submint to the status quo.

Originally posted by stephanV
No power is absolute, thats nonsense. Both above scenarios seem very unlikely to me. Don't feed me silly quotes.

They are no sillier than anything you have put forth. I say that the copyright holder can't control everything and then you say they should. And then when I allude to what that would lead to you change your mind and say they should not. So what is it to be. Should they have absolute control, reasonable control, or no control? If only reasonable control how much is reasonable between the artist and the consumer who gives the artist his power?

Originally posted by stephanV
If they lost we wouldnt have anything watch right (at least not for a while). This should not be a "them against us" discussion. Listen to Mug Funky: balance.

If they lost we would have plenty to watch and listen to. In fact we and the entire public domain would all be enriched and benefited by the release of works long since locked away because they were deemed unprofitable. And this would benefit artists and creators as well. Allowing them to finally build on the culture that came before which had always previously been their right. You would not have to worry about things like the recent jibjab case where Woody Guthrey himself the original copyright holder back in the early 1900's said that anyone was free to use his works as they wished even though he held the copyright for the next 28 years or so. That is till it entered the public domain. And here we are well over 60 years since his death at least and some uninvolved company with no vested interest comes out and claims copyright infringement in conflict with the wishes of the origianl author. I am all for balance. But they seek to unbalance things. And as such it is an us or them thing till they wise up to the "we" thing.

Originally posted by stephanV
So we should just legalise it because it is already happening?

In some form yes.

Originally posted by stephanV
Then there are a whole lot more things that could be legalised.

And indeed they should be.

Originally posted by stephanV
The form has to change a lot before it is acceptable to legalise.

Agreed. And the consumer would be more than happy to make such acceptable changes. It is the copyright holders/publishers we have to drag kicking and screaming to the change just like we did with tape recorders and VCRs. We know what is good for us and them. We know what is good for us because of who we are. And we know what is good for them to a large extent because they rely on us.

Originally posted by stephanV
Ow, wait a sec... remember the wide-spreadness you were talking about earlier? You used it in the exact opposite way, thats rather... funny.

No I use it in the exact same manner. If many widespread cultures throughout history have had no use for such concepts then they must not be essential. Just as if the majority of society and other cultures approve, condone, accept, or embrace such behavior there is no point fighting it. They are both propper examples of tradition and widespreddedness ans you would call it. Not in any way contradicting.

Originally posted by stephanV
Tradition, wide-spreadness... those are never arguments, but still you succeed in contradiciting yourself with them.

See above as to the shortcomings of your previous statement. ;)

Originally posted by stephanV
O wait, i just heard geffroman was threatened with suspension, maybe ill continue anyway.

News to me. I have no real issue with him.

Originally posted by stephanV
if you can be insulting, we can be too

If anyone is feeling insulted here then you are taking yourself to seriously. If someone disagrees with you or thinks you are wrong that is not an insult. Honestly I have not felt insulted by anyone and it has not been my intention to insult anyone. I admit I patronise these issues quite a bit. It is one of those issues I feel strongly about. And I enjoy a good discussion. But at this point we "are" going in circles. ;)

stephanV

1st September 2004, 00:16

I will not comment anymore on your pschycological analysis on how laws are natural and which ones are crucial for societies. We will never agree on that. And it would only result more circles and does not bring us closer to the real issue.

Some last few other comments, though.

In what way.
You confuse the artists total control over the content with total control over the consumer. The consumer can decide not to agree with the terms of the artist, but that does automatically mean not to watch the content. It does not mean: "Fine, then ill get it from the internet." It is that thought that is wrong. Such thoughts by-pass all forms of (legal) protection. Of course, the artist has the responsibility to comply to the law too with his terms. Perhaps both are at fault right now.

Yes but (and now this is key) they paid to get in. They did not sneak in. And in fact there are no laws against taking a camera, camcorder, or even a laptop into a theater. Further there are no laws against taking them in and using them. That is not what they are nabbing people on. They are nabbing them on the premise that they are doing this to later distribute it free over the internet and that this somehow hurts them. And while I agree that most people currently do this to distribute over P2P the jury is still out over whether or not anyone is actually getting hurt. They are however at the very least violating copyright. And that is the best to date that has been shown.
People who download did most likely not pay. Thats is what is the bigger issue. But since a man with a video camera in theater is a more easier "pray" they go for the uploader. And since P2P is the means with with which the material gets distributed they go after P2P. It appears fairly logical. However, and on this we agree, it is not right. There are two people at fault here: the copier/uploader (for sure) and the downloader (which is legally a more difficult issue). P2P can stay, no doubt.

No I use it in the exact same manner. If many widespread cultures throughout history have had no use for such concepts then they must not be essential. Just as if the majority of society and other cultures approve, condone, accept, or embrace such behavior there is no point fighting it. They are both propper examples of tradition and widespreddedness ans you would call it. Not in any way contradicting.

It is, you called copyright "common among the mightiest and most wide spread cultures". Then you went all rhetorical and asked:"But when did might ever make right?" I think you should re-read. (or re-phrase)

{OFFTOPIC]

And on your last remarks i must comment too:

If anyone is feeling insulted here then you are taking yourself to seriously.If someone disagrees with you or thinks you are wrong that is not an insult. Honestly I have not felt insulted by anyone and it has not been my intention to insult anyone. I admit I patronize these issues quite a bit. It is one of those issues I feel strongly about.
Some moderators are taking themselves very serious then. You called me more or less short sighted, I have been striked for less. I can understand why threats are seen as insults. For me, I don't really care about strikes, i can happily live on if i get banned from this board. I do not need it in anyway more then for my amusement. Also, I have found that appeals don't really work anyway so i feel no need to follow all rules of this board either. I try to answer posts and help people when i can and throw in my opinion when i feel like it. I do not usually need insults for that, so i guess i am mostly on the safe side.

However, there are actually those who are taking this serious, who are being careful when around mods. And thats something you might not realize. They think they have to be careful around you, wheigh their words or even just nod yes whenever you say something. Basically there are people who will shut up, people who leave because of threats and people who just don't care. So be happy with you patronizing self, but please realize some people think they are on thin ice here. Strikes seem to come out of nowhere nowadays.

[/OFFTOPIC]

int 21h

1st September 2004, 03:55

Originally posted by stephanV
....However, there are actually those who are taking this serious, who are being careful when around mods. And thats something you might not realize. They think they have to be careful around you, wheigh their words or even just nod yes whenever you say something. Basically there are people who will shut up, people who leave because of threats and people who just don't care. So be happy with you patronizing self, but please realize some people think they are on thin ice here. Strikes seem to come out of nowhere nowadays....

Be mindful of the volunteers that make this place possible, just as the volunteers are mindful of the members of this community. You may disagree with a particular aspect of how things are done, but there is a proper way to confront that situation.

On this forum there are two paths to travel: The first is to blanket accusations and personal attacks against what you percieve is a violation of your own self-imposed moral system. Along this path you show total disrespect to the volunteers and community members of this forum. The second path is an intellectual debate providing fact with the aim of clarifying your stance on an issue. One member took the first road and was rewarded by finding the end very quickly. A few other members decided on exploring the second road and they are still enjoying their journey.

I hope most of you will agree that there is no better forum than Doom9 to take a journey such as this.

Neo Neko

1st September 2004, 07:45

Originally posted by stephanV
Some moderators are taking themselves very serious then. You called me more or less short sighted, I have been striked for less......However, there are actually those who are taking this serious, who are being careful when around mods. And thats something you might not realize. They think they have to be careful around you, wheigh their words or even just nod yes whenever you say something.

Hmm I don't find being called short sighted an insult personally. I suppose though I do see where you are coming from and how perplexing it could be from varriance in tollerance. Point taken.

Originally posted by stephanV
Basically there are people who will shut up, people who leave because of threats and people who just don't care. So be happy with you patronizing self, but please realize some people think they are on thin ice here. Strikes seem to come out of nowhere nowadays.[/OFFTOPIC]

I don't like and have not made any threats myself. I often preffer to discuss when possible rather than strike first. I don't think the strikes I have handed out require more than one hand to count and I don't beleive any have ever been contested. But then again I may be more patient and forgiving than others at times. Bit of a double edged sword at times.

I do however understand where you are coming from now if I may not have given it a full measure of thought before. ;)

b0b0b0b

1st September 2004, 10:07

The RIAA has filed a bunch of "John Doe" lawsuits where presumably the defendant is just an IP address. Where could we see the list of addresses that haven't been resolved to actual people?

geffroman

1st September 2004, 23:53

When Neo made the ridiculous statement that some forms of Slavery might actually be beneficial, this thread was over...

How can you possibly have a discussion about right and wrong... legal and illegal... logical and illogical... moral and immoral with someone like that? (rhetorical)

int 21h

2nd September 2004, 00:32

Originally posted by geffroman
When Neo made the ridiculous statement that some forms of Slavery might actually be beneficial, this thread was over...

How can you possibly have a discussion about right and wrong... legal and illegal... logical and illogical... moral and immoral with someone like that? (rhetorical)

If you consider indentured servitude a 'form' of slavery rather than a precursor to slavery, than I would agree that indentured servitude was indeed very useful.

While I would not agree that forms of slavery itself can be beneficial, I would say that some oppressions of cultures have been beneficial. For instance, in many areas of the world that are now 'free' today, there is constant internal strife and struggle from groups that have been enemies since the beginning of recorded history. Iraq is the latest example, Bosnia, Afghanistan, even Israel. These are places that have only known relative peace when they were conquered and subjugated by other cultures (the Romans, Babylonians, Soviet Union, etc.). Obviously the deaths and injury that occured during the time these people were conquered were very unfortunate, its particularly interesting to note that these people will unite to face the one enemy until it is defeated... unfortunately most of these cultures then resort back to the group vs group, tribe vs tribe mentality, but its interesting nonetheless and offers hope that even bitter enemies can forgive their differences and unite under one banner.

stephanV

2nd September 2004, 00:47

Owno... now its becoming a silly thread :)

Originally posted by int 21h
Unfortunately most of these cultures then resort back to the group vs group, tribe vs tribe mentality, but its interesting nonetheless and offers hope that even bitter enemies can forgive their differences and unite under one banner.

They did not forgive each other, they replaced their hate for each other with an even bigger hate for a common enemy. If they truely had forgiven each other fights would be over. Period. But no, common hate is gone, old hate comes back. It's not hopeful, it's very worrying.

Mug Funky

2nd September 2004, 02:31

who wants coffee?

:P

btw, i like the new name for the thread.

oh, and StephanV: is that quote in your sig by Ford Prefect by any chance?

Wilbert

2nd September 2004, 11:11

I see that the last dozen of posts having nothing to do with the original topic of this thread. Could you please continue discussing the original topic? Otherwise I will close this thread.

Doom9

4th September 2004, 23:13

I was on holidays during the entire time this thread was going on, having a lot more fun that some of the participants here ;) Let me offer a round of Red Stripe for everyone, to relax just a bit. I haven't read everything, and neither do I plan to, but I found a very interesting post on page two which I'll quote in its entire form now

Supreme Court Justice Harry Blackmun, Dowling v. the United States:

It follows that interference with copyright does not easily equate with theft, conversion or fraud. The Copyright Act even employs a separate term of art to define one who misappropriates a copyright: "Anyone who violates any of the exclusive rights of the copyright owner," that is, anyone who trespasses into his exclusive domain by using or authorizing the use of the copyrighted work in one of the five ways set forth in the statute, "is an infringer of the copyright."

That should once and for all end the "copyright infringement = stealing" analogy. Being a Supreme Court decision, there's no overruling that, so this is it people! Of course, it doesn't really require a supreme court decision, it's actually quite apparent and dozens of reasons have been give why it's not the same.

int21's first post showed a great many threads where that subject has been discussed and where I have voiced my opinion. I do not think there's a need to repeat myself once more. But had the original poster bothered to read those thread, he'd have found that I agree with him that downloading copyrighted stuff off P2P networks without having a valid license for said content is wrong. But I do not agree with the rest and my reasons are stated in the threads int21h looked up for you.

geffroman

5th September 2004, 00:15

Dear Doom9:

This issue will come up again and again every time news posted on www.doom9.org that leans toward justifying illegal downloading with the "but they can't prove it hurts profits" argument... This is the only place WE THE PEOPLE can respond to that kind of thing...

I appreciate you putting such a fine point on the terminology... But INFRINGING is no less illegal, immoral, and flat out wrong as stealing... The parallels and analogies are dead on... It is ONLY different from theft in that a physical item is not taken from one person by another... so on a very technical level it is hard to define it as stealing or fraud but it is still very very wrong and therefore the courts have tried to DEFINE it with an accurate term that CAN BE PROSECUTED... The Supreme court must be very distinct in it's use of terminology but we do not...

People forget laws are created to force UNFAIR , UNETHICAL and IMMORAL people to behave properly... Unfortunately you cannot write perfect law because immoral and unethical people will needle their way around any loop hole they can find...

This thread has proved that theory very well... It's just disappointing that moderators that represent your site have chosen to so strongly defend the low road on the issue... Somehow even getting so far off topic as to try and justify some form of slavery... Cleary this person is looking for the Howard Stern SHOCK affect at your site's expense... but it is reckless and immature...

A couple of us have voiced objection... many are disgusted in silence... I took a stand and have removed myself as a supporting member of the doom9 community to which I have been threatened with suspension... It is a sad state in doom9 country...

Doom9

5th September 2004, 02:37

This issue will come up again and again every time news posted on www.doom9.org that leans toward justifying illegal downloading with the "but they can't prove it hurts profits" argument.That is flat out bullshit. You are seriously misreading any statements I've ever made with respect to P2P. I never have and never will defend copyright infringement. I merely point out that the loss statements by our friends from the RIAA/MPAA/BSA are grossly false and misrepresent actual facts. That is in no way defending illegal actions. You obviously have never heard of such a thing as my site disclaimer, the forum rules (r6 specifically) and our general policy towards downloaded files.. all of it is strongly anti-piracy.

Pyscrow

5th September 2004, 08:15

If your Mom owned a corner grocery and she grew flowers in the garden out back and sold them in the grocery and some guy walking by who had NO intention of ever buying his girl flowers decides to grab a bunch off the flower stand and took them home to his gal, YOU would call him a thief.

Yes, but you are still calling me a thief if I give em a good sniff and look at em, but leave the original flowers in her garden.

fccHandler

5th September 2004, 08:38

Originally posted by Pyscrow
Yes, but you are still calling me a thief if I give em a good sniff and look at em, but leave the original flowers in her garden.
I don't think that makes you a thief. A real thief would replicate the flower's DNA and use it to engineer genetic duplicates, then post them on the Internet.

stephanV

5th September 2004, 13:58

Originally posted by Pyscrow
Yes, but you are still calling me a thief if I give em a good sniff and look at em, but leave the original flowers in her garden.
No, you are misunderstanding it completely. Looking at the flowers in the store is not the same as looking at a movie you downloaded from the net. Looking at the flowers in the store would be the same as looking at the trailer of the movie.

But can we please get rid of the "thief"-analogy now? It is only abused to take the focus away from the real issue.

I don't think that makes you a thief. A real thief would replicate the flower's DNA and use it to engineer genetic duplicates, then post them on the Internet.
That's not a thief, that's more like Robin Hood. :p

fccHandler

5th September 2004, 17:17

Nope, because Robin Hood actually stole. My version is an analogy of P2P (with flowers) in which there is no physical loss to the original owner of the flowers. But does the owner suffer from this? Maybe people will no longer buy her overpriced flowers when they discover they can download copies of them for free.

stephanV

5th September 2004, 17:26

still "thief" wouldn't be the right word to use then as there is no physical loss. nothing gets stolen, it gets replicated/copied/whatever.

fccHandler

5th September 2004, 19:19

OK, how about "pirate"? :devil:

That seems to be the popular term.

Mug Funky

6th September 2004, 09:05

oh, this is OT, but no more than most of this thread:

http://www.talklikeapirate.com/piratehome.html

everybody have some fun on sept. the 19th for International Talk Like a Pirate Day!

drink some rum and go "arrrr" a lot, while singing ol' sea shanties!

...take some flowers if you like, too ;)

stephanV

6th September 2004, 10:45

ok... since apparantly to some people (you know who you are :p) i was not clear in one of my lasts posts, i will rectify some things.

Originally posted by int 21h
If you consider indentured servitude a 'form' of slavery rather than a precursor to slavery, than I would agree that indentured servitude was indeed very useful.
Well, only if you consider indentured servitude a form of slavery. Indentured servitude has a labor *agreement* as basis, whereas slavery has not. That anyone would call such a fundamental difference just "a difference in degree" is just completely ridiculous.

While I would not agree that forms of slavery itself can be beneficial
well, good.

I would say that some oppressions of cultures have been beneficial.
What??? Beneficial for whom exactly?

For instance, in many areas of the world that are now 'free' today, there is constant internal strife and struggle from groups that have been enemies since the beginning of recorded history. Iraq is the latest example, Bosnia, Afghanistan, even Israel.
Iraq, Bosnia? Could you elaborate more on that?
Afghanistan? Do you really think it was peaceful when the Sovjet-Union was there?
Israel? ...

Give me one good example of where oppression was actually beneficial.

With beneficial you actually mean to say: "They didn't bother us that much." Oppression, slavery... both are just as beneficial as stealing is to a thief.

Obviously the deaths and injury that occured during the time these people were conquered were very unfortunate
This must be the understatement of the century (and its just 2004). Your comments are near to racism/discrimination.

@fcc: actually I am changing my mind. copyright infringement is just plain, simple stealing. They are all thiefs, all of 'm. Calling them pirates, is an insult to pirates. :p

(Now where did my parrot fly of to this time?)

Neo Neko

6th September 2004, 11:15

Originally posted by stephanV
Well, only if you consider indentured servitude a form of slavery. Indentured servitude has a labor *agreement* as basis, whereas slavery has not. That anyone would call such a fundamental difference just "a difference in degree" is just completely ridiculous.

Not at all. There are noticable differences. That does not mean that we should ignore their similarities of which there are more than a few.

Originally posted by stephanV
This must be the understatement of the century (and its just 2004). Your comments are near to racism/discrimination.

Not at all. And you do int21h a great disservice with that statement. You will never derive any socially valuable and valid observations about history by ignoring the context in which it was made. Which I think is often how many peoples observations here seem to me. Lacking context. Upon viewing history with nothing but a modern moral compase you would come away with the perception that all previous cultures throughout history are at best degenerate with very little in redeming value. Which is of course wrong.

Originally posted by stephanV
@fcc: actually I am changing my mind. copyright infringement is just plain, simple stealing.

If copyright infringement is theft then why do they call it copyright infringement? Likewise if theft is copyright infringement then why call it theft? And in light of the fact that they are actually two seperate things shouldn't everyone be above confusing them at this point?

stephanV

6th September 2004, 12:24

Originally posted by Neo Neko
Not at all.
And yet i find the difference between being hold captive for all your live and having to work for 5-10 years and then getting land a whole lot more distinctive than the difference between copyright infingement and stealing. Still, you think otherwise.

You will never derive any socially valuable and valid observations about history by ignoring the context in which it was made.
I did not have to create a context as he was giving recent examples of where oppression was "beneficial". I'm saying he is wrong there. His examples are completely false and misplaced, in any context. If you really think Sovjet-Union in Afghanistan was beneficial, just say so. But better give a good explanation for it too.

And you do int21h a great disservice with that statement.
He said this:
Obviously the deaths and injury that occured during the time these people were conquered were very unfortunate,
Unfortunate? How disrespectful can you be?

Int 21h did great disservice to himself by dealing with such a difficult issue in such a sloppy way. He spent at least a few paragraphs on copyright but only a few sentences on this one. He had done better not mentioning it at all. You cannot deal with such issues like this; it is not just a word game like the discussion about the difference between stealing and copyright infringement is. I stand by what i said.

Upon viewing history with nothing but a modern moral compase you would come away with the perception that all previous cultures throughout history are at best degenerate with very little in redeming value.
I think how i view history is hardly the problem here.

If copyright infringement is theft then why do they call it copyright infringement?
That was answered by geffroman. Surpreme court needs such distinctions, ordinary people don't. Yet most people like to deviate from the real discussion with these silly word games.

And in light of the fact that they are actually two seperate things shouldn't everyone be above confusing them at this point?
Fact, what fact? Because the surpreme court says so? Thats BS, I dont even live in the US. Copyright infringement is the stealing of income, period.

unmei

7th September 2004, 16:51

First off, i did not read the whole thread in one go right now. However i jumped in every odd day. I'm posive i read most, but it might be i missed one or the other post.

Just a few thoughts.
I think you should differenciate levels both in copyright infringment and in deprivation of income. Fair use also is a deprivation of income in that sense.

Should i buy a $80 (or euro or whatever) MPEG book to look up a single technical detail? Obviously it were the only correct way. But still you can get this info off webpages or PDFs.

The massive copying of excerpts at school and even inclusion of half books in (+/-) free scripts available from professors instead of telling everyone to buy 4 expensive books each covering 75% of the material. This seems to be legal, but still 4 authors get ripped off $30-80 each for one professor getting $10-20 (probably just covering the preproduction cost).

Fansubs. There probably are other identical cases, but the one i know are japanese animation. Enthusiasts take a copyrighted works and make it available in a "usable form" to people not understanding japanese. These works are copyrighted but not distributed worldwide. And interestingly you seldom hear the creators acting against fansubbing, only licesers once they obtain a license. While they of course have the right to defend their licensed material, they probably hold a license for a single region and still they affect fansubbing worldwide by attempting to eliminate these "concurrent products" for their area. I'm of course not talking about rips of their product, but actually rips of the original they derive their product from. I don't think the licensors are wrong, it is just a weird situation. Especially with all the stupid zone and NTSC/PAL things around it. Because once an american company licenses a anime, i should not be able to watch it any longer until it is licensed and released in switzerland as well. I am NOT allowed to import the american DVD by swiss and probably as well by american law. I also were not allowed to import the japanese original or the fansub, but neither swiss not japanese authorities seem to care about this - only once it is about a DVD coming from the united states everyone is caring very well.

My father has the entire collection or Pink Floyd albums up to "the wall" on vinyl and i myself bought one or two replacements a few years ago. Also i did a backup of all the LPs to mp3 once (around '99). As far as i can tell this is legal by terms of fair use. But unfortunately i lost these backups by moving, or accidentially threw the mp3 cds away. Today i live at some distance to my father, he doesn't have a computer at his home any longer and also i remember the backups not exactly being great quality due to static noise and the rather used state of the LPs. What about getting "backups" from P2P?
(Similar situation were all the CDs i lost, even though not exactly the same because there it could be they were found or stolen and thus now someone else, not in my "range of fair use", actually has the paid copy)

I don't exactly know what to think of these cases. But in my feeling, they are substatially different from downloading a copy of a movie or music album i have not bought, will not buy but were available in stores in my area.

Also, I admit this has nothing to do with P2P, but this thread doesn't seem to be about P2P but copyright...