Last edited by Lachean; 03-25-09 at 07:02 PM.
Who left the fridge open?
What GottaHurt stated was that if its on the web then its free for anyone to have. So if someone posts music then its free for anyone. My counter to this absurd notion was to mention bank accounts and how they are accessible by the web thus defeating the ridiculous idea that if its on the web then unrestricted access is fair.And just how is downloading a copy of an electronic file tantamount to hacking into a BANK ACCOUNT or stealing a tangible car?!?
The other comment made by GottaHurt was that if companys don't do enough to protect their belongings then its their problem. This absurd notion was countered by asking whether its ok to steal your car because you didn't protect it well enough from clever thieves.
The analogies were piss poor, I'll admit that. But the notions of justice and fairplay espoused by GottaHurt are simply ignorant to the very real necessity of protecting the livlihood of inventors and artists which is solely dependent on their ability to protect their works. Furthermore the rights associated with IP provide an enormous incentive that drives creativity, invention, and proliferation.
Last edited by scourge99; 03-25-09 at 09:09 PM.
Pain can be such a beautiful thing
And of course you have all the answers: "Just encrypt it". Because if it was that ****ing easy why would thousands of companies divert millions of dollars into developing solutions for this very problem that even TODAY is not solved?
DeCSS - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The only solutions left are more and more complex and cost more and more money to implement. Moreover its risky because if you make things too much of a pain in the ass people wont buy your product.
You take bizarre to another level with each and every new post.
The rate at which you can share content has no bearing on the intent of the activity.
Pain can be such a beautiful thing
Was there some point you had or are you being dismissive?
well I'm sorry if I misunderstood your position but that's what I understood based on your wording.I've said nothing of the sort. You choose to interpret my words, then replace them with your own, to make your argument fit.
THAT, is exactly the problem here. There is no easy solution for the entertainment industry to protect their products. They have every right to sue those who violate their IP rights.No, what's absurd here is your twisted notion that a company isn't responsible to take every precaution to protect their product.
then explain your position better so there can be no doubt.Again, you take liberty with my words.
who is asking you to solve anything? I'm merely explaining why they sue rather than implement this magic "solve-everything" encryption technology you think exists but doesn't.I don't need all the answers, it's not my product, or my problem to solve.
this discussion isn't about you solving anything for them. Why in the world you would think that is beyond me. It is however about debating the inconsistancies and ignorance within your opinions on the matter.Their failure to find a solution is not my problem.
Why would I need to show this? This is about the RIAA suing people for violating their IP rights and justly so. Not about artists getting their work exposed.Yet you can't show a decline in the number of artists trying to get their product to the masses.
As long as its within the terms of Fair Use or is not a violation of copyright laws then yes such is fine.Giving a friend an album to record to cassette is no different than handing them a cd to store on a hard drive or downloading an mp3 to an ipod.
Of course not. But it does create a compelling reason why the RIAA would want to take extra steps to deter people from illegal sharing.. Whether the choice to sue people is the optimal choice or not doesn't matter. Its their choice to make and its fully within their rights to do so.The rate at which you can share content has no bearing on the intent of the activity.