Illegal File Sharing

[Nebor]

I just watched this EFF flash animation about the RIAA locking up some guy who downloaded a song.... then a music artist comes from the sky and says, "The problem isn't downloading, but making sure the artists get paid!"

I don't think your average Kazaa user cares one little bit about making sure the artist gets paid. I think they just want to not pay for something. Get something for free. The ultimate hot deal, free after rebate... The rebate is CRIME.

I wonder how these peoples' excuse holds up now that legally downloadable music is available via iTunes and Napster. I just got Napster, and have to say it's really neat, it does everything I want it to, and the artists get paid.

What do you guys think? Whats your excuse to continue to steal music?

 

[Anubis]

im too lazy to buy it

and the artists are getting paied its teh record comps that are loosing out

 

[Kenazo]

no cost. not paying for songs i don't like.

 

[Heisenberg]

First of all, despite what the RIAA's brainwashing has told people, it's not a criminal offense. It's a civil offense. It's not even stealing - it's copyright infringement. You cannot be arrested for copyright infringement. Secondly, copyrights are not a guarenteed right like free speech. They are discretionary and originally expired after 7 years. Thanks mainly to Disney, they've been extented effectively indefinitely. When a large percentage of the population feels a law is invalid as evidenced by peoples' attitudes toward filesharing, then maybe that law should be changed.

 

[DJFuji]

Not trying to thread crap Nebor, but i hope every piece of software on your machine is purchased/registered (using winzip after the trial period is illegal, you know). If not, you're being horribly hypocritical.

 

[Kenazo]

Originally posted by: Heisenberg
First of all, despite what the RIAA's brainwashing has told people, it's not a criminal offense. It's a civil offense. It's not even stealing - it's copyright infringement. You cannot be arrested for copyright infringement. Secondly, copyrights are not a guarenteed right like free speech. They are discretionary and originally expired after 7 years. Thanks mainly to Disney, they've been extented effectively indefinitely. When a large percentage of the population feels a law is invalid, then maybe that law should be changed.

I am afraid of the last section of your statement.

 

[Gyrene]

My personal opinion: File sharing copyrighted files is immoral, illegal, and just plain wrong. You don't want to buy the CD because you only like a few songs? Download the song through iTunes, Napster, or the plethora of other legal file sharing programs. There's no excuse for stealing someone else's intellectual/creative property.

P.S. Yes, every program/mp3/AAC/etc on my computer has been purchased, is legal, and I retain the serial number for.

 

[giguana]

no money to pay for it...oh and to piss people off with holier than thou attitudes like yourself.

 

[Gyrene]

Originally posted by: Kenazo

Originally posted by: Heisenberg
First of all, despite what the RIAA's brainwashing has told people, it's not a criminal offense. It's a civil offense. It's not even stealing - it's copyright infringement. You cannot be arrested for copyright infringement. Secondly, copyrights are not a guarenteed right like free speech. They are discretionary and originally expired after 7 years. Thanks mainly to Disney, they've been extented effectively indefinitely. When a large percentage of the population feels a law is invalid, then maybe that law should be changed.

I am afraid of the last section of your statement.

I agree. A large percentage of the population is usually ill-informed or doesn't give a damn.

 

[Heisenberg]

Originally posted by: Kenazo

Originally posted by: Heisenberg
First of all, despite what the RIAA's brainwashing has told people, it's not a criminal offense. It's a civil offense. It's not even stealing - it's copyright infringement. You cannot be arrested for copyright infringement. Secondly, copyrights are not a guarenteed right like free speech. They are discretionary and originally expired after 7 years. Thanks mainly to Disney, they've been extented effectively indefinitely. When a large percentage of the population feels a law is invalid, then maybe that law should be changed.

I am afraid of the last section of your statement.

Why? Copyrights are not a natural right like free speech, due process, etc. I know where you're going about passing laws that oppress a minority based on a majority opinion, but that's not the case here. I'm more scared by the fact that the DCMA gives private entities the power to issue supeonas, something that only the government should have the power to do, and only after judicial review. Talk about violating rights. The DCMA sends the 5th Amendment right out the window.

 

[Jeff7181]

I don't download much anymore... my taste in music has changed and it's difficult to find complete albums that I like on Kazaa and other file sharing software. I mean... try and find a complete Pig Destroyer, or a complete Anal C*nt album... not gonna happen. Plus, with CD prices dropping (I just bought Hatebreed: The Rise of Brutality for $10, and it's a new release) I'll buy the album if I like it... if nothing more than to support the band. I usually hear about new bands through friends, so I have the opportunity to listen before I buy anyway. I would, however, buy albums from Napster if they cost less than going to the store and buying the actual CD. But... at $9.95 an album, I'd rather go to the store, get the origional CD and the case and the liner notes with it. If Napster wants my business, they'll have to make it worth my while to get it from them... like say... charge $7.50 an album since I'm not actually purchasing a material object that I can hold in my hands... and I'd have to provide my own CD if I want to put the music on a CD. Of course... there are those of you in AnandLand that leave the house very rarely who would probably like to sit huddled next to the computer while listening to a new release 😉

 

[silverpig]

Napster + itunes = not available in Canada.

Well, you can download them and look at them, but you can't buy sh!t.

 

[flxnimprtmscl]

Originally posted by: dtyn

Originally posted by: Kenazo

Originally posted by: Heisenberg
First of all, despite what the RIAA's brainwashing has told people, it's not a criminal offense. It's a civil offense. It's not even stealing - it's copyright infringement. You cannot be arrested for copyright infringement. Secondly, copyrights are not a guarenteed right like free speech. They are discretionary and originally expired after 7 years. Thanks mainly to Disney, they've been extented effectively indefinitely. When a large percentage of the population feels a law is invalid, then maybe that law should be changed.

I am afraid of the last section of your statement.

I agree. A large percentage of the population is usually ill-informed or doesn't give a damn.

While I agree with you on that I'd rather have the ill informed population decide things than have major corporations tell me how to think and what's right and wrong. I think it's really time we all pool our money and start trying to buy our government back.

 

[silverpig]

Originally posted by: Jeff7181
or a complete Anal C*nt album...

I heard you were pregnant, so I kicked you in the stomach!!!!


😛


Disturbing stuff, but it's funny... kinda... in a... disturbing way 🙂

 

[Atlantean]

Ok I download my music because I am not going to pay for crap... that being said when I do like the artist and have downloaded the whole cd, I buy the cd because I think that the artist deserves my support and actual cds sound better. And it is not stealing because you still have to pay for the blank cd, it is pirating, there is a difference.

 

[Jeff7181]

Originally posted by: silverpig

Originally posted by: Jeff7181
or a complete Anal C*nt album...

I heard you were pregnant, so I kicked you in the stomach!!!!


😛


Disturbing stuff, but it's funny... kinda... in a... disturbing way 🙂

It's not so much the lyrics or the shock value of the name of the band that I like... it's the music I'm into. I play guitar, or... try to... so I'm always looking for some inspiration as well.

 

[Kenazo]

When a large percentage of the population feels a law is invalid, then maybe that law should be changed.

This was the part of the statement that strikes fear into me. Although I believe the recording industry perhaps needs a massive game changing overhaul, and so does the law in the instance, I don't believ laws should be able to be changed by the majority. We'd soon descend into chaos.

 

[Ns1]

whatever here's my opinion on it

if you buy a seat or wahtever at target, and you don't like it, you can return it and get another one

if you buy a cd, and it's crap, you're SOL and you're out 10-15 bucks

every cd that i've purchased (only ~50 right now) i've dl'ed first and listened to

mp3's save me a grip of money on worthless cd's

sampling music also helps the artist because i spend ALOT MORE MONEY going to concerts than i do on cd's (let's see....180 bucks for 3 concerts or 40 bucks on 4 cd's?)

not to mention the countless number of dj's i got to hear live because i was able to listen to their stuff on mp3

 

[Jeff7181]

Originally posted by: Kenazo

When a large percentage of the population feels a law is invalid, then maybe that law should be changed.

This was the part of the statement that strikes fear into me. Although I believe the recording industry perhaps needs a massive game changing overhaul, and so does the law in the instance, I don't believ laws should be able to be changed by the majority. We'd soon descend into chaos.

Right... I think a lot of people would like free Chicken McNuggets... does that mean there should be a law that says McDonalds can't charge money for Chicken McNuggets?
Don't forget... these musicians make their money by people buying thier CD's... if suddenly their CD were made available for free, how would they make a living? Donations? Pfft. This is their job... sure some of them make ungodly amounts of money that they very well may not deserve... but they are entitled to compensation for their work, just like anybody else.

 

[CanOWorms]

Originally posted by: Heisenberg

Originally posted by: Kenazo

Originally posted by: Heisenberg
First of all, despite what the RIAA's brainwashing has told people, it's not a criminal offense. It's a civil offense. It's not even stealing - it's copyright infringement. You cannot be arrested for copyright infringement. Secondly, copyrights are not a guarenteed right like free speech. They are discretionary and originally expired after 7 years. Thanks mainly to Disney, they've been extented effectively indefinitely. When a large percentage of the population feels a law is invalid, then maybe that law should be changed.

I am afraid of the last section of your statement.

Why? Copyrights are not a natural right like free speech, due process, etc. I know where you're going about passing laws that oppress a minority based on a majority opinion, but that's not the case here. I'm more scared by the fact that the DCMA gives private entities the power to issue supeonas, something that only the government should have the power to do, and only after judicial review. Talk about violating rights. The DCMA sends the 5th Amendment right out the window.

Aren't copyrights originally in the Constitution? I also don't think they expire after 7 years... not even patents expire that quickly.

 

[Heisenberg]

Originally posted by: Kenazo

When a large percentage of the population feels a law is invalid, then maybe that law should be changed.

This was the part of the statement that strikes fear into me. Although I believe the recording industry perhaps needs a massive game changing overhaul, and so does the law in the instance, I don't believ laws should be able to be changed by the majority. We'd soon descend into chaos.

Do you actually know how the legislative branch works? Every law passed by Congress is passed by at least a majority in both houses.

 

[Heisenberg]

Originally posted by: CanOWorms

Originally posted by: Heisenberg

Originally posted by: Kenazo

Originally posted by: Heisenberg
First of all, despite what the RIAA's brainwashing has told people, it's not a criminal offense. It's a civil offense. It's not even stealing - it's copyright infringement. You cannot be arrested for copyright infringement. Secondly, copyrights are not a guarenteed right like free speech. They are discretionary and originally expired after 7 years. Thanks mainly to Disney, they've been extented effectively indefinitely. When a large percentage of the population feels a law is invalid, then maybe that law should be changed.

I am afraid of the last section of your statement.

Why? Copyrights are not a natural right like free speech, due process, etc. I know where you're going about passing laws that oppress a minority based on a majority opinion, but that's not the case here. I'm more scared by the fact that the DCMA gives private entities the power to issue supeonas, something that only the government should have the power to do, and only after judicial review. Talk about violating rights. The DCMA sends the 5th Amendment right out the window.

Aren't copyrights originally in the Constitution? I also don't think they expire after 7 years... not even patents expire that quickly.

Yes, they are one of the powers granted to Congress. They are not a natural right. Originally, copyrights were granted for seven years. Now it's some stupid high number like 50 years after the last person to be in the room when it was written dies. So they are effectively indefinite.

 

[Venix]

First of all, despite what the RIAA's brainwashing has told people, it's not a criminal offense. It's a civil offense. It's not even stealing - it's copyright infringement. You cannot be arrested for copyright infringement.

17 USC 506 outlines criminal copyright infringement. The DOJ routinely uses it to take down warez groups and other large-scale pirates.

 

[silverpig]

Originally posted by: CanOWorms

Originally posted by: Heisenberg

Originally posted by: Kenazo

Originally posted by: Heisenberg
First of all, despite what the RIAA's brainwashing has told people, it's not a criminal offense. It's a civil offense. It's not even stealing - it's copyright infringement. You cannot be arrested for copyright infringement. Secondly, copyrights are not a guarenteed right like free speech. They are discretionary and originally expired after 7 years. Thanks mainly to Disney, they've been extented effectively indefinitely. When a large percentage of the population feels a law is invalid, then maybe that law should be changed.

I am afraid of the last section of your statement.

Why? Copyrights are not a natural right like free speech, due process, etc. I know where you're going about passing laws that oppress a minority based on a majority opinion, but that's not the case here. I'm more scared by the fact that the DCMA gives private entities the power to issue supeonas, something that only the government should have the power to do, and only after judicial review. Talk about violating rights. The DCMA sends the 5th Amendment right out the window.

Aren't copyrights originally in the Constitution? I also don't think they expire after 7 years... not even patents expire that quickly.

I think they USED to, then Disney didn't want everyone ripping off Mickey Mouse, so they got it pushed to 99 years, and then just recently again (because theirs was coming up to being expired) they got it pushed back to something else.

 

[CanOWorms]

Originally posted by: Heisenberg

Originally posted by: CanOWorms

Originally posted by: Heisenberg

Originally posted by: Kenazo

Originally posted by: Heisenberg
First of all, despite what the RIAA's brainwashing has told people, it's not a criminal offense. It's a civil offense. It's not even stealing - it's copyright infringement. You cannot be arrested for copyright infringement. Secondly, copyrights are not a guarenteed right like free speech. They are discretionary and originally expired after 7 years. Thanks mainly to Disney, they've been extented effectively indefinitely. When a large percentage of the population feels a law is invalid, then maybe that law should be changed.

I am afraid of the last section of your statement.

Why? Copyrights are not a natural right like free speech, due process, etc. I know where you're going about passing laws that oppress a minority based on a majority opinion, but that's not the case here. I'm more scared by the fact that the DCMA gives private entities the power to issue supeonas, something that only the government should have the power to do, and only after judicial review. Talk about violating rights. The DCMA sends the 5th Amendment right out the window.

Aren't copyrights originally in the Constitution? I also don't think they expire after 7 years... not even patents expire that quickly.

Yes, they are one of the powers granted to Congress. They are not a natural right. Originally, copyrights were granted for seven years. Now it's some stupid high number like 50 years after the last person to be in the room when it was written dies. So they are effectively indefinite.

I think that's a good time and it's not even nearly indefinite. 7 years is an absurdly low amount of time!