P2P Crackdown... aka: Moderator on the loose!

[geffroman]

I sincerely appreciate doom9... and yes I have donated... I love the News section to keep up to date... But when Mr Doom9 posts about file sharing he often defends it with the argument that "studies have not been done to prove file sharing is the cause of declining sales".

I know a lot of people feel this way but it's wrong headed... So before all trash me please read and understand my view...

Downloading files (Video, Music, Programs) that you have not paid for that are a product of someone else who sells them for money is wrong whether you would have EVER bought that product or not.

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.

Now he could argue that he was never going to buy the flowers anyway so you LOST NO REVENUE... He could argue that you never sell all the flowers you grow and throw many away at the end of the day... But you would not buy into those excuses... He would just be the ass that stole flowers from your mom...

You see, just because you don't wanna pay for something doesn't mean TAKING it for free is not a crime unless "studies show cause and affect of declining revenue"... it is still stealing... and when people steal they can be arrested legally all day long... No where in the legal system does PROOF of lost revenue enter into it...

So if you wanna defend file sharing PLEASE DO! I would appreciate it... But use arguments that are sound and don't make us look like we are talking out the wrong end... No legal mind in Congress is going to buy a weak argument like that and Congress is the one that will WRITE the laws that will take away our rights or save them!

Thanks for listening.

[Sirber]

What about using P2P to get unlicensed anime from japan?

[Soulhunter]

Normal flowers should be for free anyway !!!

Simply go to a meadow and grab some... ;)


Bye

[Phanton_13]

I think in other way, nad for my personal experience the P2P are helping the shell of items, in reality the relation betwen P2P and shel of a product is no studied in the correct way, they don't studi the indirect impact, I'm buying music now, wen I'm dowloading it from P2P, I can haer a complete alboom and decided if i like it in the other way I acn`t judje one alboom from only 1-2 songs. In teh other way in the P2P is posible to find a rare albooms, movies... and is imposible to find it for purchase. I can`t buy all I like, for money and for not find the items in the marked.

I like to find a non expensive pick up capable of playing 78-72rpm discs fro gramofone, are the share in p2p of this discs illegal? this discs are produced betwen 1905 y 1920

[Soulhunter]

Right !!!

I bought CD's for more than 100 €uro's the last 3 months... :eek:

Most of them I bought only coz Ive dl them via P2P before !!!

Mainly unknown (not mainstream top of the pop's) artists... :rolleyes:

__________________

Anyway...

Most of the money Ive spend for CD's in the past, I spend now for DVD's and PC games !!!

Reason for this ???

* 5 different (M)TV channels and countless radio stations playing the top 100 24/7 in-loop... :p


Also the quality of mainstream music has decreased (IMO very much...) the last years !!!

* 2 out of 10 CD's with distortions, 4 out of 10 with clicks, 6 out of 10 compressed to hell... :sly:

__________________

And I know Im not the only one who thinks this way !!!

Nah, why complaining about...


Bye

[DK64_MASTER]

What we are discussing here is an act of a thief, not an average P2P user. There will always be outliers that people can make examples of and use them as exuses. If someone likes something that they have downloaded, I'm sure a lot of them will go an fork out money for that exact same product, or another product that supports the author/artist. I used to use P2P for sampling music, and I bought a lot of what I downloaded. The rest I found was trash. In terms of movies (and not music), I'm sure this would definitely apply, because I wouldn't want a crap quality dvd rip from Kazaa, or whatever P2P network you download movies from. I'd sample the movie (and vomit at the crap quality), and buy/rent the original.

[neo75903]

U cannot exclude the fact some ppl do download music to save a few bucks. But these are ussually teenage kids who does not have the money to buy most of the music they would like to. But in years when they grew up and start to earn money, they will turn into buyers.
P2P has an effect as an pr channel. Yes, i also download music, but hearing a few good tracks from a artist i go out and buy the cd or dvd to support the artist.

[int 21h]

This subject has been discussed to death on here.

http://forum.doom9.org/showthread.php?s=&threadid=78760 (Hatch vs P2P)
http://forum.doom9.org/showthread.php?s=&threadid=80938 (Microsoft vs P2P)
http://forum.doom9.org/showthread.php?s=&threadid=75963 (Japan vs P2P Software Author)
http://forum.doom9.org/showthread.php?s=&threadid=73164 (Causes of Piracy, P2P's role)
http://forum.doom9.org/showthread.php?s=&threadid=73679 (Canada sides with P2P users)
http://forum.doom9.org/showthread.php?s=&threadid=72795 (Swiss vs P2P)
http://forum.doom9.org/showthread.php?s=&threadid=62924 (Britain vs P2P)
http://forum.doom9.org/showthread.php?s=&threadid=42915 (Gobbles Security vs P2P)

[dragongodz]

int21h - too true but it will keep popping up. :)

geffroman - you are mistaken about the whole point of what Doom9 said. he didnt say it was good to download copyrighted music etc. he is questioning the RIAAs reason/excuse for attacking P2P.

the RIAA say their records sales have declined because of P2P but where is the proof thats the reason ? ok they can give numbers showing sales decline(especially singles) but i have also seen in the past cd singles sales decline here but cd albums sales rise. also are the artists released from the previous year the same this year ? if not then do they normally have the same sales amount ? if not then a decline would be normal and have nothing to do with P2P.

actually throw in to that total singles and albums released from the first year to the second, are they the same aswell ? again if not then thats another factor to impact total sales.

i could keep going with all these factors which the RIAA ignore but that should give you some idea of why their statements are not trusted. if they were to submit their theory to any scientific review it would be thrown out in 5 seconds. they do not include all factors which could have an impact on results, they do not show any believable study which backs up their reasoning, they make a blanket statement without proof.


so again its not about ripping off copyrighted material its about the RIAA saying "facts" which are clearly half baked at best and only say what they want them to.

[dani82]

studies can prove anything; but remember, they can also dis-prove anything

[geffroman]

@dragon - But he did this time and in most cases point out that studies don't prove downloading HURTS the music industry. That is obviously an implication that he believes if the industry can't prove downloading costs them money then stealing isn't stealing.

I don't care if the RIAA lies all day long... 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...

The 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. Stealing is stealing and their propaganda doesn't excuse the theft of their products...

Those of you that think getting things for free as a kid is going to make you go buy it as an adult are not considering the fact that the Music industry does NOT survive by adult dollars. They survive by kid dollars. So if you agree it's just teenagers downloading... then you admit the industry's number one client is being lost.

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. You must support P2P for it's legitimate uses of sharing NON copywrited material if you want to keep P2P long term.

[dragongodz]

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]

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]

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

[Sirber]

We could add some music to that :D

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

lol

[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.

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]

What about DRM?

[neo75903]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

@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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

@Nicholi,

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

[Soulhunter]

@ Wilbert

Fear...

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

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


Bye

[Nicholi]

@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]

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]

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]

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.