RIAA lobbyist becomes federal judge, rules on file-sharing cases

[JSt0rm]

So, one would need to be sharing files in a public fashion in order for their ISP to be able to legally see?

yes. Without sharing over the internet how would they see it?

 

[comptr6]

yes. Without sharing over the internet how would they see it?

All networking hardware including home routers are built with backdoors in them to allow for surveillance by law enforcement agencies to fight terrorists.

http://www.theinquirer.net/inquirer/news/1590674/cisco-handholds-hackers-backdoor

 

[JEDIYoda]

All networking hardware including home routers are built with backdoors in them to allow for surveillance by law enforcement agencies to fight terrorists.

If you know how you can close those back doors

 

[jonks]

comptr6
All networking hardware including home routers are built with backdoors in them to allow for surveillance by law enforcement agencies to fight terrorists.

and the people in your TV can see you

 

[JSt0rm]

All networking hardware including home routers are built with backdoors in them to allow for surveillance by law enforcement agencies to fight terrorists.

http://www.theinquirer.net/inquirer/news/1590674/cisco-handholds-hackers-backdoor

He asked about the isp. Not the terrorist fighting government.

 

[comptr6]

He asked about the isp. Not the terrorist fighting government.

Yes I should have been more specific. Lawful interception as described in the article I posted is captured by the ISP (or contractors working for the ISP) and delivered to a law enforcement agency.

and the people in your TV can see you

Do you realize how crazy that sounds? :\

 

[nonlnear]

You should spend your time dreaming about bettering yourself not pulling someone else down.

My point is that in the last decade we have come to a untenable situation where peoples work is being stolen on a broad level. This is a very real situation, your solution - pirating as much as you can to fuck another person over, isn't the solution.

I used to be in an industry that's about to be torpedoed by, among other causes, recorded mass distribution. I packed my bags and got a better job with better pay. Frankly I believe that the industry I left (higher education) doesn't have an inherent right to provide jobs simply because they have always done things a certain way and gotten used to a certain standard of living.

 

[JSt0rm]

I used to be in an industry that's about to be torpedoed by, among other causes, recorded mass distribution. I packed my bags and got a better job with better pay. Frankly I believe that the industry I left (higher education) doesn't have an inherent right to provide jobs simply because they have always done things a certain way and gotten used to a certain standard of living.

This isnt about job losses because of efficiency or changing trends in entertainment. These are job losses because huge groups of people are able to steal what they once purchased. Please tell me you see the difference?

And I'm very lucky as I'm on the inside. I dont think it can shrink much more then it has and I'm still working. So I will survive as they say. As much as you hate that fact.

 

[comptr6]

This isnt about job losses because of efficiency or changing trends in entertainment. These are job losses because huge groups of people are able to steal what they once purchased. Please tell me you see the difference?

And I'm very lucky as I'm on the inside. I dont think it can shrink much more then it has and I'm still working. So I will survive as they say. As much as you hate that fact.

Thank you for your dedication to your country. Keep your spirits up and keep fighting and someday the movie industry will win it's fight against piracy and recover from this slump its been in.

 

[nonlnear]

This isnt about job losses because of efficiency or changing trends in entertainment. These are job losses because huge groups of people are able to steal what they once purchased. Please tell me you see the difference?

Rent seeking is rent seeking. The fact that Disney was able to buy Congress doesn't give current copyright law any kind of moral high ground. I have as much respect for a copyright older than (about) 20 years as I do for a Prohibition Agent. My morality is not determined by legislation. (FYI, I don't pirate content. I can't be bothered.)

And I'm very lucky as I'm on the inside. I dont think it can shrink much more then it has and I'm still working. So I will survive as they say. As much as you hate that fact.

If you happen to be the last horsewhip manufacturer employed, more power to you. I'll still cheer the closing of the other horsewhip makers, as their demise is a symbol of beautiful progress.

 

[BoberFett]

As I've said before, I'm sure John Lennon has been hard at work writing new songs thanks to copyrights that will last another 50 years, if not indefinitely thanks to Disney and their bought and paid for congresscritters.

But I'm sure Jstorm doesn't have any problem with people on HIS side being bought and paid for. It's those damn Republicans that are evil.

 

[JSt0rm]

As I've said before, I'm sure John Lennon has been hard at work writing new songs thanks to copyrights that will last another 50 years, if not indefinitely thanks to Disney and their bought and paid for congresscritters.

But I'm sure Jstorm doesn't have any problem with people on HIS side being bought and paid for. It's those damn Republicans that are evil.

Copyright and file sharing are 2 separate issues.

Now if you want to understand my views on copyright I demand you watch this video first.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5SaFTm2bcac

 

[BoberFett]

Copyright and file sharing are 2 separate issues.

You begin with a false premise, so everything you believe based on that premise is ignored.

Copyright and file sharing are inextricably linked, otherwise you wouldn't be here complaining about it like a little bitch.

 

[JSt0rm]

You begin with a false premise, so everything you believe based on that premise is ignored.

Copyright and file sharing are inextricably linked, otherwise you wouldn't be here complaining about it like a little bitch.

Watch the video please.

 

[nonlnear]

Copyright and file sharing are 2 separate issues.

How exactly are they separate? The only reason file sharing is an issue is because it is actually a shorthand term for "copyrighted file sharing". Without copyright, there would be absolutely no public discussion of file sharing. It would be just another bit of technical jargon for some decentralized storage and transfer protocols.

Now if you want to understand my views on copyright I demand you watch this video first.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5SaFTm2bcac

Done. Now what?

 

[JSt0rm]

How exactly are they separate? The only reason file sharing is an issue is because it is actually a shorthand term for "copyrighted file sharing". Without copyright, there would be absolutely no public discussion of file sharing. It would be just another bit of technical jargon for some decentralized storage and transfer protocols.

I agree with you

Done. Now what?

Your thoughts?

For me when I think about copyright I'm thinking about derived commercial or artistic works. But as I said you are correct this is about copyright infringement but not commercial copyright issues.

 

[BoberFett]

OK, I've seen that video before, I'm familiar with the Amen Break. So your point is that music should be locked up such that nobody else can ever use it? Arpeggios and scales should be owned by corporations? Or what exactly IS your point other than that you're a greedy person who only thinks about money, much like the Republicans you hate?

 

[nonlnear]

Your thoughts?

For me when I think about copyright I'm thinking about derived commercial or artistic works. But as I said you are correct this is about copyright infringement but not commercial copyright issues.

I guess I was caught a little off guard (in a good way). I'm just not sure how such a healthy view of the importance of a rich public domain plays into where (I thought) you were going with the file sharing comments. I suspect I misjudged the nature of your opinion of the content industry, but can't really say much more without knowing a little more about what you do...

 

[nonlnear]

OK, I've seen that video before, I'm familiar with the Amen Break. So your point is that music should be locked up such that nobody else can ever use it? Arpeggios and scales should be owned by corporations? Or what exactly IS your point other than that you're a greedy person who only thinks about money, much like the Republicans you hate?

I thought the point of the video was that content shouldn't be locked away...

 

[JSt0rm]

OK, I've seen that video before, I'm familiar with the Amen Break. So your point is that music should be locked up such that nobody else can ever use it? Arpeggios and scales should be owned by corporations? Or what exactly IS your point other than that you're a greedy person who only thinks about money, much like the Republicans you hate?

No I think content should be open to derivative works after a sensible time period. This is not whats happening with filesharing, unfortunately.

 

[nonlnear]

No I think content should be open to derivative works after a sensible time period. This is not whats happening with filesharing, unfortunately.

Would you put that reasonable time somewhere in the 10-25 year time frame?

 

[BoberFett]

No I think content should be open to derivative works after a sensible time period. This is not whats happening with filesharing, unfortunately.

And thanks to your industry, never will. Well done.

 

[JSt0rm]

Guys I need to run to dinner now. Continue tomorrow.

 

[comptr6]

Copyright and file sharing are 2 separate issues.

Now if you want to understand my views on copyright I demand you watch this video first.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5SaFTm2bcac

Because of the changes of US copyright laws for example the copyright act of 1976 and the Sonny Bonno Copyright extension act of 1998 which extends copyrights until the mid 21st century, virtually all 20th century cultural output has been locked away from the public domain, barred from sampling, unless one has deep pockets and expensive lawyers. So it seems that a company like Zero-G with it's attempt at regulating the use of and profiting from the use of the Amen Break is helping to secure the supremacy of copyright laws, while the company's very success itself occurred because of a lack of strict copyright controls surrounding break-beat sampling.

In other words, not only does the innovation within culture grow when copyright is flexible so do it's markets and capital. New trends are devoloped, new sounds are sought after, new releases are anticipated and sought after and become hugely popular perhaps even selling out. New stars are born, new fan bases are created, new money is exchanged. All in the pursuit of new forms and experiences, of potentials for new connections and meanings.

 

[JimW1949]

I am not sure that I understand half of the laws that govern copyrighted material and file sharing. Correct me if I am wrong on what I am about to say.

I have a large screen HD television set. I also have a Blue-Ray DVD player. Suppose I go out and buy a DVD, invite some friends over, I pick up a couple cases of beer and order some pizzas, and we all watch the movie and have a good time. As far as I know, I am not doing anything illegal.

Now suppose that instead of just having friends over to watch a movie for free, I CHARGE them $5 to watch the movie. Now I am breaking the law, or at least I think I am.

But suppose I invite them over, and I let them watch the movie for free, but I charge them $5 for the beer and pizza. Am I breaking the law then?

What I am getting at is, where does this illegal activity start? I used to buy a record album, then I would record the album on a cassette tape and play it in my car. The idea is that if I somehow wrecked the tape, I could always make a new tape because the album was still in wonderful condition since I only played it once. When CD's came to be, I would make a copy of the CD and use the copy instead of the original because I did not want to leave the CD in the car where the heat might damage it. Also, I could edit out the songs I don't really want, and that is a big plus. But now it is my understanding that with all the new DRM you can no longer do that.

Just who does the RIAA think they are that they can tell me I can't make a copy of something that I bought so as to lessen my chances of damaging the original?

I realize everyone wants to protect their work. I can respect that, and I even agree with it. But when protecting someone's work interferes with the constructive use of the product that a consumers pays, probably way too much money for, then as far as I am concerned, the whole damn thing has gone way too far. Protecting your work is one thing. Screwing the consumer in the process of protecting your work is quite another thing entirely. As far as I am concerned, the RIAA has gone way too far and someone needs to come down on them really hard.