Illegal File Sharing

[ThisIsMatt]

I bought 4 cds off half.com last night for a grand total of $16.xx. Now if those tards would make $4-5 the retail price they wouldn't have to worry so much.

 

[CanOWorms]

Originally posted by: 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.

I think I remember reading back when this was happening that this would put American copyright holders on the same level as European ones since they extended theirs before. Anyone know?

 

[Heisenberg]

Originally posted by: 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.

Section 506. Criminal offenses

(a) Criminal Infringement. - Any person who infringes a copyright
willfully either -
(1) for purposes of commercial advantage or private financial
gain, or
(2) by the reproduction or distribution, including by
electronic means, during any 180-day period, of 1 or more copies
or phonorecords of 1 or more copyrighted works, which have a
total retail value of more than $1,000,

IANAL, but it seems to me this code only applies to people who make a profit from their activities.

 

[flxnimprtmscl]

Originally posted by: 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.

You should take a look into where artists make their money. I think you'd be very surprised. I can tell you that unless you're a mega star (celien dion (sp?) type ) then you're not making money on cd's. Cd's go to the record companies/riaa and that's it for the most part. Artists make their money of touring/merchandise.

 

[KthxBye]

meh

that is all

 

[Gyrene]

Originally posted by: KthxBye
meh

that is all

Insightful, thank you.

 

[Venix]

IANAL, but it seems to me this code only applies to people who make a profit from their activities.

That used to be the case, actually. A few years ago, Congress passed the NET Act, which amended the law to add in the part about "by the reproduction or distribution, including by electronic means..", which means that freely distributing more than a certain amount of copyrighted material is now also a criminal offense. The NET Act also amends "financial gain" to cover file-trading, so if you send someone a file and he sends you one in return, you've just committed infringement for financial gain.

MP3 traders should worry a lot more about the RIAA than the government, though. I don't think that the DOJ has or will ever prosecute anyone but large-scale distributors.

 

[Thoreau]

Originally posted by: 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 😉

Sorry to skew from the direct subject of this thread, but with Napster, what happens if your comp crashes and you've just bought $100 worth of music? Are they going to let you download it again? If not, say hello to kazaa again. Also, i've read that napster distributes music in WMA format only, which is NOT acceptable IMHO. It's funny that if you're already paying for something that they have the nerve to treat you like a theif and use DRM to keep tabs on your usage.

 

[mugs]

Originally posted by: Heisenberg

Originally posted by: 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.

Section 506. Criminal offenses

(a) Criminal Infringement. - Any person who infringes a copyright
willfully either -
(1) for purposes of commercial advantage or private financial
gain, or
(2) by the reproduction or distribution, including by
electronic means, during any 180-day period, of 1 or more copies
or phonorecords of 1 or more copyrighted works, which have a
total retail value of more than $1,000,

IANAL, but it seems to me this code only applies to people who make a profit from their activities.

No, it only applies if the copyright owner would have made a profit off what you were illegally copying. It doesn't matter if you sell it or give it away, what matters is that you deprive them of the potential to sell $1000 worth of their work.

Edit: This should be required reading if you ever want to talk about copyrights.

 

[BeefJurky]

Originally posted by: 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.

copy c:\chickenmcnugget.nug c:\chickenmcnugget2.nug

woot, free nugget.