Obama Administration Announces Massive Piracy Crackdown

Glinda · Jun 28, 2010

Harry Guerrilla said:
If the food is bad enough, I'll demand a refund yes.

But that's not what I asked. Let's try again:

When you go to a restaurant and order something that tastes good but isn't quite as yummy as you believed it would be, do you refuse to pay?

Harry Guerrilla said:
How many movies have you watched on over the air tv, that you never paid for?

It's not possible for me to watch "over the air" movies on TV without paying my satellite company, which in turn pays royalties on the films they broadcast.

Harry Guerrilla said:
What about songs on the radio

Bad analogy. I don't end up with any tangible copy of what is broadcast by just listening. But the radio station still pays royalties on the music they broadcast.

Harry Guerrilla said:
pictures by contemporary painters?

This also doesn't follow. If I want an actual oil painting to hang on my wall, I have to go buy one. You can't download such a thing.

Harry Guerrilla said:
The fact is that in almost every aspect of the IP world you're allowed to sample the product before you buy it.

AH! You finally found the crux of the matter. Sampling is being offered a snippet of something far larger, as an enticement. You've said that "if I like the movie I'll buy it, if not, they didn't earn my money." But there's no way to know if you "like the movie" before seeing the movie. ALL of the movie. A three-minute snippet of a film is simply not enough for any human to make a final judgment on whether or not they "like the movie."

Sampling is fine. It's marketing. It's PR. It's smart business.

But what you're advocating is being given the entire film to view, and then paying for that pleasure ONLY if you "liked" the whole thing. That's something entirely different. And you know it.

Harry Guerrilla said:
I'd like the option of a refund, as it is, that option is very restricted in most places.

Huh? You'd like the option of a refund because the movie was pretty good, but not the best movie you ever saw? Maybe I need to ask the question again:

When you go to the movies, and the film is ok, but not quite as exciting and entertaining as you believed it would be, do you demand a refund?

Harry Guerrilla said:
A lot of the time you can't get a refund on a DVD and must settle for store credit.

That's because YOU USED IT (and for all the store knows, you made a copy for yourself before returning it). :doh

Harry Guerrilla said:
I think you should question the moral reasoning behind the movie cartel and why they resist allowing you to own you property how you want it.

I do question the movie/music cartels. I think they're ultimately ripping off the artists just like you are. But beyond that...

You know, I've got a great collection of these big flat pieces of plastic called record albums, that replicate live music. They're really old, and some are sort of damaged, and they can only be listened to at home, so they aren't very practical. But then, along came these nifty things called 8-track tapes - portable music! Cool! So I went to the music store and bought 8-track tapes of a lot of my favorite albums. Then someone invented cassette tapes that worked even better than 8-tracks, and out I went to buy more new copies of those old record albums. Pretty soon, another new invention - compact discs! Awesome!

Now I've got four versions of exactly the same thing. Big deal. Life goes on. I certainly don't expect the people who created the recordings on vinyl to supply me with an 8-track and a cassette and a CD years down the line just because someone invented a new technology. They all deserve their part of the pie. Including the original artist.

Bottom line: I still live by my principles, even when others don't.

Harry Guerrilla said:
They want DRM devices installed in your computer, TV, DVD players, Cellphones etc.

I support the prevention of copyright infringement.

Harry Guerrilla said:
They want you to own their product how they want it and for you to be locked into sometimes buying their same product multiple times.

Well, this just sounds like whining to me.

People who sell a product are well within their rights to build that product any way they wish. Who are you to tell them otherwise? And if you don't like the way that product was built, you're not obligated to buy it. Simple as that.

danarhea · Jun 28, 2010

Harry Guerrilla said:
The MPAA and RIAA have both parties in their back pocket.
They love to preserve their monopoly of the industry.

I have no problem taking what I want, buying it at it's current price levels is a rip off.

It is theft of someone else's intellectual property. You steal a song from the internet, the person who actually wrote that song gets no residual for that transaction.

You can call it anything you want, but the truth is that it is theft, plain and simple. And if you are doing it, that makes you a thief.

RightinNYC · Jun 28, 2010

For the people who are arguing for the current copyright regime:

Do you use/what are your thoughts on Tivo, adblockers, and pop-up blockers?

Harry Guerrilla · Jun 28, 2010

Glinda said:
But that's not what I asked. Let's try again:

When you go to a restaurant and order something that tastes good but isn't quite as yummy as you believed it would be, do you refuse to pay?

There is a difference.
With food I am getting something out of it, a physical benefit.
With a lousy movie I get nothing.

No I won't necessarily refuse to pay but I have the option of not consuming their product again.
With a movie, I'm left completely empty handed.

Glinda said:
It's not possible for me to watch "over the air" movies on TV without paying my satellite company, which in turn pays royalties on the films they broadcast.

Antenna + TV = you can watch movies on TV for free.

Glinda said:
Bad analogy. I don't end up with any tangible copy of what is broadcast by just listening. But the radio station still pays royalties on the music they broadcast.

I'm not ending up with a tangible copy either.
I don't keep these movies that I watch, I go out and buy the DVD if it's worth it.

Glinda said:
This also doesn't follow. If I want an actual oil painting to hang on my wall, I have to go buy one. You can't download such a thing.

You can look at and enjoy paintings and pictures without purchasing a copy, is that stealing?

Glinda said:
AH! You finally found the crux of the matter. Sampling is being offered a snippet of something far larger, as an enticement. You've said that "if I like the movie I'll buy it, if not, they didn't earn my money." But there's no way to know if you "like the movie" before seeing the movie. ALL of the movie. A three-minute snippet of a film is simply not enough for any human to make a final judgment on whether or not they "like the movie."

Sampling is fine. It's marketing. It's PR. It's smart business.

But what you're advocating is being given the entire film to view, and then paying for that pleasure ONLY if you "liked" the whole thing. That's something entirely different. And you know it.

Watching the whole movie is sampling, if they market their movie to only include the best parts in their marketing campaign, it's essentially false advertising.

Glinda said:
Huh? You'd like the option of a refund because the movie was pretty good, but not the best movie you ever saw? Maybe I need to ask the question again:

When you go to the movies, and the film is ok, but not quite as exciting and entertaining as you believed it would be, do you demand a refund?

It depends on the movie but I rarely go to the theater unless it's a series/director that has proven to be good maker.
Otherwise I watch for free before I decide to purchase the DVD.

Getting a refund at a theater is incredibly difficult, if not in many cases not possible.

Glinda said:
That's because YOU USED IT (and for all the store knows, you made a copy for yourself before returning it). :doh

As long as that is the gold standard, I'll watch it for free until I decide it is worth buying.
You see it acceptable and I don't.

Glinda said:
I do question the movie/music cartels. I think they're ultimately ripping off the artists just like you are. But beyond that...

I'm not ripping anyone off.
I wouldn't be buying the movies I watch, if I could not get them for free.
Long before I started dl'ing movies to watch, I got tired of renting because it was a total crap shoot and wasted a lot of money.

Instead, I now have the option to see if something is actually worth buying.
If it is, they profit.
If it's junk, they don't.

Glinda said:
You know, I've got a great collection of these big flat pieces of plastic called record albums, that replicate live music. They're really old, and some are sort of damaged, and they can only be listened to at home, so they aren't very practical. But then, along came these nifty things called 8-track tapes - portable music! Cool! So I went to the music store and bought 8-track tapes of a lot of my favorite albums. Then someone invented cassette tapes that worked even better than 8-tracks, and out I went to buy more new copies of those old record albums. Pretty soon, another new invention - compact discs! Awesome!

Now I've got four versions of exactly the same thing. Big deal. Life goes on. I certainly don't expect the people who created the recordings on vinyl to supply me with an 8-track and a cassette and a CD years down the line just because someone invented a new technology. They all deserve their part of the pie. Including the original artist.

Bottom line: I still live by my principles, even when others don't.

That is not what DRM does, DRM is the attempt of the industry to stop you from making back up copies, in case the original goes bad.
It's a method to extort more money from people.

Glinda said:
I support the prevention of copyright infringement.

That's fine, I support ownership of tangible private property.
When a company tries to restrict the use of my hardware through government, I'll punish them by doing what I want, when I want.

Glinda said:
Well, this just sounds like whining to me. People who sell a product are well within their rights to build that product any way they wish. Who are you to tell them otherwise? And if you don't like the way that product was built, you're not obligated to buy it. Simple as that.

What about when company A tries to force company B to produce a product how company A wants it, through the use of government?
That is what a lot of companies are trying to do through DRM.

I'm not whining because in the end, I get to do whatever I want to, regardless of moral outrage.

Harry Guerrilla · Jun 28, 2010

danarhea said:
It is theft of someone else's intellectual property. You steal a song from the internet, the person who actually wrote that song gets no residual for that transaction.

You can call it anything you want, but the truth is that it is theft, plain and simple. And if you are doing it, that makes you a thief.

No it doesn't.
You can't apply tangible concepts to non tangible "things."

Travelsonic · Jun 28, 2010

danarhea said:
It is theft of someone else's intellectual property. You steal a song from the internet, the person who actually wrote that song gets no residual for that transaction.

First, you don't prove how your premise is correct, then you go on as if it were proven, which only begs more questions.

HOW is it theft, specially since IP is by nature something that can't be stolen like a piece of fruit or a chair can. So far, for example, the law disagrees, unless you are calling the people in Dowling v. U.S and Grokster liars.

And 2nd, theft is not defined by payment or lack therefore, as it is an absurdly broad proposition that renders plenty of things illegal or immoral that aren't. Sure, they get no money, but using that logic, competing for listeners/money by making your own, and simply not buying the person's music does that too - keep said artist from making money. Are those examples theft? Using the broad definition you provided, yes, using logical deduction, no.

danarhea said:
You can call it anything you want, but the truth is that it is theft, plain and simple.

The truth is that you made the claim and went with it without explaining why your position is correct, or proving the logical and factual integrity. HOW DO WE KNOW YOUR STATEMENT IS TRUTH and not just opinion stated factually?

I for example believe you are wrong because what is commonly seen as theft involves 2 elements, taking, and deprivation of said taken thing from the person ho had it before.

There, then I can continue to say that in my opinion this, that and the other.

danarhea · Jun 28, 2010

RightinNYC said:
For the people who are arguing for the current copyright regime:

Do you use/what are your thoughts on Tivo, adblockers, and pop-up blockers?

I can't speak for Tivo, but I am for adblockers and pop-up blockers. Advertisers do have every right to send unsolicited advertising my way, but on the other hand, I also have the right to block it out, if that is what I want to do.

Glinda · Jun 28, 2010

Harry Guerrilla said:
There is a difference. With food I am getting something out of it, a physical benefit.

You're still avoiding the question. You ate the food. It was perfectly edible, but it wasn't one of the best meals you ever ate. Do you demand a refund?

Harry Guerrilla said:
With a lousy movie I get nothing.

Then why watch a movie at all? Seems like you're more into OWNING a movie than in enjoying the visceral experience of watching one. That's odd.

Harry Guerrilla said:
No I won't necessarily refuse to pay but I have the option of not consuming their product again.

Ok, so you wouldn't refuse to pay after consuming something that was good but wasn't THE bestest, most awesomest thing ever. We have a winner!

Harry Guerrilla said:
With a movie, I'm left completely empty handed.

Once again, it sounds like you put absolutely no value on things you can't physically own or touch. I feel sorry for you!

Harry Guerrilla said:
Antenna + TV = you can watch movies on TV for free.

Nope. I live in a very rural area, in the woods. No antenna reception. No cell phone reception either. :shrug:

Harry Guerrilla said:
I'm not ending up with a tangible copy either.

Again, it sounds like you put absolutely no value on things you can't physically own or touch. That's a really sad way to look at the world.

Harry Guerrilla said:
You can look at and enjoy paintings and pictures without purchasing a copy, is that stealing?

I don't know. Are you enjoying the originals in a museum? If so, you most likely paid for that pleasure. If you're DLing copies for free and 'shopping out the visual copyright so that you can enjoy them unimpeded in your own home? Yeah, that's copyright infringement/theft.

Harry Guerrilla said:
Watching the whole movie is sampling, if they market their movie to only include the best parts in their marketing campaign, it's essentially false advertising.

:shock: Where the hell did you get these nutty ideas? You are terribly, terribly confused. A sample is a limited quantity of something which is intended to be similar to and represent a larger amount of that thing; it is not the whole thing. That's why it's called a SAMPLE. And offering a free sample of ANYthing is not even close to false advertising. If anything, it's a (limited) open disclosure. :roll:

Harry Guerrilla said:
It depends on the movie but I rarely go to the theater unless it's a series/director that has proven to be good maker.

And if you go to see that film at a theater and it turns out not to be as enjoyable as the director's previous films? Do you demand a refund?

Harry Guerrilla said:
Otherwise I watch for free before I decide to purchase the DVD.

You've still received the full benefit of that product; you still saw the entire film for free. Whether or not you purchase the DVD at a later time, you've already consumed the product. You owe the creators for what you've already consumed (whether you "liked" the product or not).

Harry Guerrilla said:
I'm not ripping anyone off.

Copyright law says you are. Intellectual property laws say you are. (And so do I.)

Harry Guerrilla said:
I wouldn't be buying the movies I watch, if I could not get them for free.

And what about the times you took them for free and didn't go buy your very own DVD to hold and pet and care for? You still TOOK AND CONSUMED THEM without paying.

Harry Guerrilla said:
That is not what DRM does, DRM is the attempt of the industry to stop you from making back up copies, in case the original goes bad.

Yes. I know what DRM does/is. As I said, I support the prevention of copyright infringement/theft.

My remarks about replacing albums with 8-tracks and cassettes and CDs was a different thought. That's why it was in a different paragraph.

Harry Guerrilla said:
That's fine, I support ownership of tangible private property.

Yeah. It seems like that's all you care about. If you can't touch it and own it and pet it and care for it, it's of no consequence to you. Sad.

Harry Guerrilla said:
When a company tries to restrict the use of my hardware through government, I'll punish them by doing what I want, when I want... in the end, I get to do whatever I want to, regardless of moral outrage

Ohhh, so you're a self-proclaimed vigilante / pirate / chief lord and executioner, and proud of it! Good for you! :thumbs:

Harry Guerrilla said:
What about when company A tries to force company B to produce a product how company A wants it, through the use of government?

Company A can't force Company B to produce any product, with or without the government's help.

Harry Guerrilla said:
I'm not whining

No, you're definitely whining.

RightinNYC · Jun 28, 2010

danarhea said:
I can't speak for Tivo, but I am for adblockers and pop-up blockers. Advertisers do have every right to send unsolicited advertising my way, but on the other hand, I also have the right to block it out, if that is what I want to do.

I'm not referring to unsolicited advertisements from spam sites, but to advertisements that are part and parcel of legitimate websites. Moreover, you may not be legally entitled to block those ads.

Web ad blocking may not be (entirely) legal - ZDNet

Advertising-supported companies have long turned to the courts to squelch products that let consumers block or skip ads: it happened in the famous lawsuit against the VCR in 1979 and again with ReplayTV in 2001. Tomorrow's legal fight may be over Web browser add-ons that let people avoid advertisements. These add-ons are growing in functionality and popularity, which has led legal experts surveyed this week by CNET News.com to speculate about when the first lawsuit will be filed. If ad-blockers become so common that they slice away at publishers' revenues, "I absolutely would expect to see litigation in this area," said John Palfrey, executive director of Harvard Law School's Berkman Center for Internet and Society.

...

A more recent hint about legality comes from a 2003 appeals court decision related to a copyright dispute over the file-sharing service Aimster. In that opinion, 7th Circuit Judge Richard Posner concluded that, based on earlier court rulings, commercial-skipping creates "an unauthorized derivative work, namely a commercial-free copy that would reduce the copyright owner's income from his original program, since 'free' television programs are financed by the purchase of commercials by advertisers." By "derivative work," he was referring to a concept from copyright law that says it's generally unlawful to make a new work out of an existing copyrighted one without permission.

Under Posner's reasoning, the use of an ad-blocker creates an unauthorized derivative work that infringes on the copyright of the site whose ads you're blocking.

With rampant piracy and a swell of free, legal content hurting nearly all content industries, many view ad-based distribution as one of the few possible business models that can still work. Furthermore, it is one employed by countless Web sites, including Ars Technica. However, ad blocking essentially short circuits that model. Since the ads are never loaded, the site pays for the content, bandwidth and server costs to deliver the material to the reader but never has a chance to recoup the costs. In short, every person who blocks ads on a site is a mathematical loss for the site, albeit a small one. Since many Web sites, especially larger ones, are paid on a per impression basis, simply saying “I wouldn’t click on them anyway” is no consolation. Refusing to look at the ads or be subject to the impression deprives the site of revenue.

Patrick O’Keefe, both my co-host of the Copyright 2.0 Show and the operator of many advertising-supported forums, agrees with this, “I say this as both a publisher and an active website user and reader: If you love a site, you should view their ads or, if they offer it, subscribe to their ad-free version. You should not block their ads because, if you do, you are contributing to the end of that site.” As a result, many, though not necessarily O’Keefe, view this as a strange form of piracy. A situation where the viewer is trying to obtain content for “free”, without taking on their share of the burden. The only difference is where traditional piracy involves obtaining a normally paid creation for free, ad blocking takes a work that was available at the “cost” of viewing ads but removes that expense. As with any other type of piracy, this shifts the cost of the work to the paying customers, in this case those who view the page normally, and forces creators to squeeze more revenue from them in order to stay alive.

The Ad-Blocker's Dilemma | PlagiarismToday

Even if we set aside the issue of whether its really enforced (as most copyright isn't enforced either), how do you logically distinguish the underlying principle?

Many companies earn most or all of their revenue from online ads. In exchange for that revenue you provide them, they give you access to their content. By using an adblocker, you are accessing their content without paying them. Many sites (like this one) display ads for non-members but give you the option to get rid of the ads by paying a small fee. By using an adblocker, you are avoiding the requirement to pay.

Look at a site like Hulu - the only reason that it exists is because it can make a substantial chunk of money from the ads it places in the middle of the videos. If everyone starts blocking those ads, it will drastically cut into Hulu's revenues, thus taking money out of the pockets of the people who created that content.

I don't see how that's materially different from what many are derisively referring to as piracy. To me, its just a less obvious form of it, one that most people are willing to justify.

danarhea · Jun 28, 2010

RightinNYC said:
I'm not referring to unsolicited advertisements from spam sites, but to advertisements that are part and parcel of legitimate websites. Moreover, you may not be legally entitled to block those ads.

Web ad blocking may not be (entirely) legal - ZDNet

Under Posner's reasoning, the use of an ad-blocker creates an unauthorized derivative work that infringes on the copyright of the site whose ads you're blocking.

The Ad-Blocker's Dilemma | PlagiarismToday

Even if we set aside the issue of whether its really enforced (as most copyright isn't enforced either), how do you logically distinguish the underlying principle?

Many companies earn most or all of their revenue from online ads. In exchange for that revenue you provide them, they give you access to their content. By using an adblocker, you are accessing their content without paying them. Many sites (like this one) display ads for non-members but give you the option to get rid of the ads by paying a small fee. By using an adblocker, you are avoiding the requirement to pay.

Look at a site like Hulu - the only reason that it exists is because it can make a substantial chunk of money from the ads it places in the middle of the videos. If everyone starts blocking those ads, it will drastically cut into Hulu's revenues, thus taking money out of the pockets of the people who created that content.

I don't see how that's materially different from what many are derisively referring to as piracy. To me, its just a less obvious form of it, one that most people are willing to justify.

Very interesting spin. Posner is telling me that the airwaves inside my own home are not mine, to do with as I please? How about I have dinner at his house, fart at the dinner table, then tell him that he is not allowed to use Glade to get rid of the smell? :mrgreen:

Harry Guerrilla · Jun 29, 2010

Glinda said:
You're still avoiding the question. You ate the food. It was perfectly edible, but it wasn't one of the best meals you ever ate. Do you demand a refund?

I didn't avoid the question at all.

I still get a benefit from the food, whether or not, it tastes good.
With the movie I don't.

Glinda said:
Then why watch a movie at all? Seems like you're more into OWNING a movie than in enjoying the visceral experience of watching one. That's odd.

Yes I like to own movies, I enjoy rewarding the makers well made movies.
On the other hand, I do not enjoy rewarding poorly done movies.

If the experience is not executed to my liking, they don't deserve my money.

Glinda said:
Ok, so you wouldn't refuse to pay after consuming something that was good but wasn't THE bestest, most awesomest thing ever. We have a winner!

That isn't what I said, you're great at putting words in the mouths of others.
There is a minimum satisfaction level and of course if the food was always unpleasant, I wouldn't eat there again.
On the other hand, if it is consistently good, I will.

With the food though, I do get a benefit whether or not it tastes "the best."
Movies, not so much.

Glinda said:
Once again, it sounds like you put absolutely no value on things you can't physically own or touch. I feel sorry for you!

I do enjoy intangible things but as far as this goes, if I do not recieve the good experience of a movie I shouldn't have to pay.
It's not only a waste of money but also a waste of time, my time.

Glinda said:
Nope. I live in a very rural area, in the woods. No antenna reception. No cell phone reception either. :shrug:

You're arguing over semantics, the point is that people can watch movies for free without paying a subscription and also not buying things from the advertisers.

Are they stealing as well?

Glinda said:
Again, it sounds like you put absolutely no value on things you can't physically own or touch. That's a really sad way to look at the world.

Already addressed this.

Glinda said:
I don't know. Are you enjoying the originals in a museum? If so, you most likely paid for that pleasure. If you're DLing copies for free and 'shopping out the visual copyright so that you can enjoy them unimpeded in your own home? Yeah, that's copyright infringement/theft.

You can look at plenty of painting without paying to see them.
Not talking about printing it, I'm talking about looking at it and enjoying it.
Are you stealing when you do?

I know, you know what I'm talking about, why are you dodging so much?

Glinda said:
:shock: Where the hell did you get these nutty ideas? You are terribly, terribly confused. A sample is a limited quantity of something which is intended to be similar to and represent a larger amount of that thing; it is not the whole thing. That's why it's called a SAMPLE. And offering a free sample of ANYthing is not even close to false advertising. If anything, it's a (limited) open disclosure. :roll:

You can sample a small piece of food and know how it will taste.
You cannot sample a movie and know how well it will be.

There is a difference and you know it.

Glinda said:
And if you go to see that film at a theater and it turns out not to be as enjoyable as the director's previous films? Do you demand a refund?

Nope, movie theaters don't usually give refunds.
That's why I rarely go.

Glinda said:
You've still received the full benefit of that product; you still saw the entire film for free. Whether or not you purchase the DVD at a later time, you've already consumed the product. You owe the creators for what you've already consumed (whether you "liked" the product or not).

No I haven't, what about the "behind the scenes", "deleted scenes", and all the other extras.
Definitely not the full benefit of the product.

I don't owe the creator anything, if their product is crap.
They owe me my time I wasted watching it but I'll take the free viewing as a consolation.

Glinda said:
Copyright law says you are. Intellectual property laws say you are. (And so do I.)

Appeal to authority.
Laws aren't always right but you know that already.

Glinda said:
And what about the times you took them for free and didn't go buy your very own DVD to hold and pet and care for? You still TOOK AND CONSUMED THEM without paying.

What about my time that was wasted on their crap product.
I want it back, how do I go about getting my time back?

Glinda said:
Yes. I know what DRM does/is. As I said, I support the prevention of copyright infringement/theft.

My remarks about replacing albums with 8-tracks and cassettes and CDs was a different thought. That's why it was in a different paragraph.

Why do you support DRM?
Do you think that it should be illegal to modify a piece of hardware you bought and own?

I don't care about your albums, 8 tracks etc.
That is technological progress and really has nothing to do with IP holders trying to force you to buy multiple versions of the same product for different pieces of hardware.

Glinda said:
Yeah. It seems like that's all you care about. If you can't touch it and own it and pet it and care for it, it's of no consequence to you. Sad.

Nope that's not what I said.
Already address this.

Glinda said:
Company A can't force Company B to produce any product, with or without the government's help.

Oh but they can tie them up with lawsuits to the point of bankruptcy or have the government draft a bill that forces the company to include DRM software/hardware into their products and also make it illegal for a person to remove said hardware/software.

Glinda said:
No, you're definitely whining.

Baseless insults for your bad arguments.

R. Shackleferd · Jun 29, 2010

danarhea said:
How about I have dinner at his house, fart at the dinner table, then tell him that he is not allowed to use Glade to get rid of the smell? :mrgreen:

What makes you think you own your own farts? Our farts are probably a copyright infringement against food conglomerates that we're not allowed to share.

CrazyMcCool · Jun 29, 2010

Chappy said:
Here I'll spell it out for you.

If you owned something and someone just took it from you, you would be angry about it; you might even call the police about it.

But, not when it comes to music or video; when it comes to that then all of a sudden the rules are somehow different, at least for some people. Those people think it's their "right" to just take other's people's property and get all bitchy about it when the owner tries to protect it. Those people are thieves.

Of course, they have all kinds of justifications: they're just "sharing," the labels and studios are assholes, the original artists don't make much off of recorded media, etc., etc. It's self-serving bull**** which make these people hypocrites on top of everything else.

Yeah you are talking about something else...The idea of torenting is freedom of information tbh..

You know that artists make more in one concert that in one year of them selling CD's

Most Artists hate the RIAA cause they bully them and take advantage of them.

The infected mashrooms have released all their Music for free on download sites, and make a ****load of money from just doing concerts..

Note how p2p has only done good to musicans, and note how the RIAA and the MPAA are posting record gains that rival most oil cooperations...

There is just about miles of evidence showing their record gains, and little to no evidence of their losing money..
They are justing doing this cause they can't handle not being in control of the music and ****..

When an artist signs up with the RIAA they are also givin a special thing in the contract that lets them quit from the RIAA whenever they want.
and the RIAA is pusing a bill that is going to take that right from the artist. Basicly making the artists RIAA's bitches..

If people would distribute their music online ( infected mashrooms, nine inch nails ( or w/e its called) and then do concerts, they make more money easily than selling CD's and getting -1% profit from the sells..

RightinNYC · Jun 29, 2010

danarhea said:
Very interesting spin. Posner is telling me that the airwaves inside my own home are not mine, to do with as I please? How about I have dinner at his house, fart at the dinner table, then tell him that he is not allowed to use Glade to get rid of the smell? :mrgreen:

It's not airwaves that are yours to do with what you like, it's data that you are affirmatively requesting from a service provider. That service provider offers you the content in conjunction with the advertising to help pay revenue.

danarhea · Jun 29, 2010

RightinNYC said:
It's not airwaves that are yours to do with what you like, it's data that you are affirmatively requesting from a service provider. That service provider offers you the content in conjunction with the advertising to help pay revenue.

OK, then. Does that mean I can be arrested for purchasing a magazine at a news stand, taking it home, then tearing out all the advertising because I don't want to see it? After all, I did request data from a provider (in this case, a magazine).

The way I see it, providers, whether a magazine or a web site, can provide whatever they want in conjunction with whatever else they want. I still have the right to decide what I want to view, and what I want to block out, in the privacy of my own home. To be blunt, what I choose to view or block in my own home is none of their damn business.

marduc · Jun 29, 2010

danarhea said:
OK, then. Does that mean I can be arrested for purchasing a magazine at a news stand, taking it home, then tearing out all the advertising because I don't want to see it? After all, I did request data from a provider (in this case, a magazine).

you have to look at that advertising to tear it out.

Glinda · Jun 29, 2010

Harry Guerrilla said:
I still get a benefit from the food, whether or not, it tastes good. With the movie I don't.

Sure you do. You just can't take it home and display that visceral experience in your massive video library for all to see and admire and envy.

Harry Guerrilla said:
I do enjoy intangible things

Yeah, that's obvious.

Harry Guerrilla said:
if I do not recieve the good experience of a movie I shouldn't have to pay. It's not only a waste of money but also a waste of time, my time...

They owe me my time I wasted watching it

Hoo, boy. You are some piece of work, buddy. :lamo

Harry Guerrilla said:
IP holders trying to force you to buy multiple versions of the same product for different pieces of hardware.

This is life, kiddo. Someone comes up with a new technology and we all must either adapt or die. If you want to enjoy the latest movie on the latest in-home gear, you're going to have to buy the latest damned in-home gear. Get over yourself. :roll:

And stop whining!

dontworrybehappy · Jun 29, 2010

Well, regarding the "multiple formats for the same product" I think it's a valid argument that we shouldn't have to purchase multiple copies of the same product. If I purchase a CD with songs on it, I should have the right to play that on any piece of hardware that I can get it to play on. It's the same song, same product, just different format. If I pay money for a lawnmower for instance, I can use that lawnmower on any property I own. I don't have to buy a different lawnmower for every lot I own across the city or state. Sooooo.....I should be able to listen to a song I purchase using any means I own. All an MP3 is is a CD song converted, that's like saying that you should have to buy two computers, one that runs on 115v and one that runs on 240v. Uh no, one machine should be able to do both, and they do. Now CD players are also MP3 players, so either/or gets the job done. But to punish someone who has old equipment with making them buy something twice when the guy next door doesn't have to, that's bull****.

As long as you aren't distributing the songs for free, or worse, for compensation, IMHO, you aren't copyright violating anything. You bought it. It's yours. Period. I know that's not how the law reads right now, but give it time, I feel eventually it will.

R. Shackleferd · Jun 29, 2010

Glinda said:
This is life, kiddo. Someone comes up with a new technology and we all must either adapt or die.

Not unless it's technology that duplicates data and shares it right? Then by all means we should fight against that technology.

roguenuke · Jun 30, 2010

I am against file sharing online, just from the sheer volume of it. However, I believe that once you buy a CD/song/movie, that you should be able to download it to any media/device you or someone in your family owns. I do not think that families should have to buy multiple copies of a CD/DVD so that everyone is able to enjoy a song/movie on their own device. If this were the case, where does it end? Who in the family actually owns the disk/book? Would it be wrong to watch the DVD/listen to the song/CD as a family? Would it be break copyright infringement laws to show a movie at a party of friends and/or family? How about loaning the movie out? Or reselling books/movies/CDs at yard sales or to used item stores, is that wrong?

I think that private use should be fine. Once the media is made public, then it should be punishable, if the artist wishes to seek punishment. The punishment should be reasonable and somewhat based on if the person was seeking profit or not.

R. Shackleferd · Jun 30, 2010

roguenuke said:
How about loaning the movie out? Or reselling books/movies/CDs at yard sales or to used item stores, is that wrong?

I think that private use should be fine. Once the media is made public, then it should be punishable, if the artist wishes to seek punishment. The punishment should be reasonable and somewhat based on if the person was seeking profit or not.

I used to think like you when I would find ways to justify aggression done by intellectual property laws; thinking that if the person shares and makes a profit, that it's wrong. I don't think this way any more though because of after market movie theaters , things like netflix and the resale of media that most likely got backed up digitally.

Question for you. Why is renting out a video 500 times ok but a movie getting downloaded 500 times isn't?

Travelsonic · Jul 1, 2010

roguenuke said:
I am against file sharing online....

Be very careful with wording, P2P, torrenting, etc is just a method of distribution of files, just like one can't say sharing MP3s is illegal since MP3 is just a file format. That's it. The issues arise in HOW it is being used, and abused in some people's eyes, like with the MP3 what TYPE of music [legally, illegally distributed] is the issue.

ReverendHellh0und · Jul 6, 2010

So this thread is not about somalia? :ssst:

LimeLight · Jul 6, 2010

They'll never manage to do this. To much information flows through the internet today. They would never be able to trace it all.

Obama Administration Announces Massive Piracy Crackdown

Glinda

You kids get off my lawn!

danarhea

Slayer of the DP Newsbot

RightinNYC

Girthless

Harry Guerrilla

Harry Guerrilla

Travelsonic

danarhea

Slayer of the DP Newsbot

Glinda

You kids get off my lawn!

RightinNYC

Girthless

danarhea

Slayer of the DP Newsbot

Harry Guerrilla

R. Shackleferd

CrazyMcCool

RightinNYC

Girthless

danarhea

Slayer of the DP Newsbot

marduc

don't panic

Glinda

You kids get off my lawn!

dontworrybehappy

R. Shackleferd

roguenuke

R. Shackleferd

Travelsonic

ReverendHellh0und

I don't respect you.

LimeLight

Active member