RIAA will drop suit if you

[buck]

Originally posted by: HomeAppraiser
When I shut my Qwest DSL off for an hour or so, I have a different IP address when I turn it back on!

So it changes with every blackout or vacation.

lmao

 

[smack Down]

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: JackBurton

As I said, and they have no valid reason for their actions, so what's you point? Like I said, two wrongs don't make a right, it just makes you even.

My point is your attempts at justifying theft fall flat.

Somehwere out there there is someone who doesn't like you, and feels you got over on them. Are they justified in stealing from you?

Nobody is talking about steal anything.

 

[dxkj]

I like the argument "If I couldn't download it, I still wouldnt buy it" Meaning you are taking no money away from the rIAA because it was worth spending 5 mins to download, but if it wasnt possible you still wouldnt have spent money on it.

People act like digital copies are a cut and dry case... it isn't that simple... We used to say that stealing bread was wrong, even to feed your family, but if you could wave a magic wand and make 4 copies of the bread, and take 3 home, is that stealing?

You didnt have money to spend on the bread in the first place so the bakery doesnt actually suffer... they still have their loaf of bread....

 

[JackBurton]

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: JackBurton

As I said, and they have no valid reason for their actions, so what's you point? Like I said, two wrongs don't make a right, it just makes you even.

My point is your attempts at justifying theft fall flat.

Somehwere out there there is someone who doesn't like you, and feels you got over on them. Are they justified in stealing from you?

Your whole argument falls flat. Theft is not being committed, it is copyright infringement. And I don't care if someone infringes on my copyright. Like I said before, television executives view skipping commercials as stealing. I guess you don't skip commercials, as it would be "stealing." Hey, maybe we should blame all the evil commercial skippers for the TV networks' actions against TiVo to stop commercial skipping. :roll:

 

[hjo3]

Isn't it in most ISPs' TOS that YOU are responsible for the use of your internet connection? When you agree to that contract, you accept liability for what goes through your assigned IP. By that logic, opening up your wifi to everyone doesn't eliminate your liability -- it dramatically increases it.

 

[FelixDeCat]

ha ha

 

[jagec]

Originally posted by: Amused
Why not just stop stealing music?

Downloading music is illegal, but it's a different crime than stealing, which should be blindingly obvious in the same way that forging money is obviously different than robbing banks.

 

[shortylickens]

Originally posted by: jagec

Originally posted by: Amused
Why not just stop stealing music?

Downloading music is illegal, but it's a different crime than stealing, which should be blindingly obvious in the same way that forging money is obviously different than robbing banks.

Yeah but these days the intellectual crimes are getting more attention in the courts than the physical ones.

When I see law suits like these its just a grim reminder that we can no longer nail armed robbers and muggers like we want. I wonder what the last years conviction rates were for violent crimes.

Lady Justice is blind all right. So long as you can make a heavy deposit on her scale you can have all the justice you want.

 

[Amused]

Originally posted by: JackBurton

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: JackBurton

As I said, and they have no valid reason for their actions, so what's you point? Like I said, two wrongs don't make a right, it just makes you even.

My point is your attempts at justifying theft fall flat.

Somehwere out there there is someone who doesn't like you, and feels you got over on them. Are they justified in stealing from you?

Your whole argument falls flat. Theft is not being committed, it is copyright infringement. And I don't care if someone infringes on my copyright. Like I said before, television executives view skipping commercials as stealing. I guess you don't skip commercials, as it would be "stealing." Hey, maybe we should blame all the evil commercial skippers for the TV networks' actions against TiVo to stop commercial skipping. :roll:

People do not create these things for free any more than you go to work for free. Your downloading them for free is no better than your boss having you work your required hours, then refusing to pay you. You are benefiting from their work without compensating them.

Ethically it is theft. The legal term may be different but ethically it is the same as theft. You are stealing from the artists and record companies when you take their intellectual property without paying them.

You can roll your eyes all you want and weakly try to justify your actions, but it doesn't make them any less wrong.

If you can justify theft from others, people can justify theft from you.

 

[daniel1113]

Originally posted by: Amused
Ethically it is theft. The legal term may be different but ethically it is the same as theft. You are stealing from the artists and record companies when you take their intellectual property without paying them.

I would argue that they are not the same ethically. After all, one could download music/files all day without incurring a cost to the owner, whereas the loss of a drill due to theft at a hardware store would cost the owner the money paid for the drill. This is why it is difficult to put a price on potential profits lost due to piracy and intellectual theft. The RIAA/MPAA assumes that everyone that downloads a song/movie would otherwise purchase the material had they not obtained it illegally. Of course, that is far from the truth.

 

[Amused]

Originally posted by: daniel1113

Originally posted by: Amused
Ethically it is theft. The legal term may be different but ethically it is the same as theft. You are stealing from the artists and record companies when you take their intellectual property without paying them.

I would argue that they are not the same ethically. After all, one could download music/files all day without incurring a cost to the owner, whereas the loss of a drill due to theft at a hardware store would cost the owner the money paid for the drill. This is why it is difficult to put a price on potential profits lost due to piracy and intellectual theft. The RIAA/MPAA assumes that everyone that downloads a song/movie would otherwise purchase the material had they not obtained it illegally. Of course, that is far from the truth.

Irrelevant. You are enjoying the benefits of their work without compensating them. They did not agree to work for you for free. Therefore you have no right to benefit from their work for free. It is the same as theft of services, ethically.

Again, there is no justification for this. You can try all day long but all it makes you look like is a spoiled little thief with a nasty little sense of entitlement.

You are NOT entitled to the work product of others, no matter how much you think you are.

 

[daniel1113]

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: daniel1113

Originally posted by: Amused
Ethically it is theft. The legal term may be different but ethically it is the same as theft. You are stealing from the artists and record companies when you take their intellectual property without paying them.

I would argue that they are not the same ethically. After all, one could download music/files all day without incurring a cost to the owner, whereas the loss of a drill due to theft at a hardware store would cost the owner the money paid for the drill. This is why it is difficult to put a price on potential profits lost due to piracy and intellectual theft. The RIAA/MPAA assumes that everyone that downloads a song/movie would otherwise purchase the material had they not obtained it illegally. Of course, that is far from the truth.

Irrelevant. You are enjoying the benefits of their work without compensating them. They did not agree to work for you for free. Therefore you have no right to benefit from their work for free. It is the same as theft of services, ethically.

Again, there is no justification for this. You can try all day long but all it makes you look like is a spoiled little thief with a nasty little sense of entitlement.

You are NOT entitled to the work product of others, no matter how much you think you are.

WTF are you rambling about? I never said I was entitled to it. I said it wasn't the same as physical theft, ethically. Would you care to address that?

 

[Amused]

Originally posted by: daniel1113

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: daniel1113

Originally posted by: Amused
Ethically it is theft. The legal term may be different but ethically it is the same as theft. You are stealing from the artists and record companies when you take their intellectual property without paying them.

I would argue that they are not the same ethically. After all, one could download music/files all day without incurring a cost to the owner, whereas the loss of a drill due to theft at a hardware store would cost the owner the money paid for the drill. This is why it is difficult to put a price on potential profits lost due to piracy and intellectual theft. The RIAA/MPAA assumes that everyone that downloads a song/movie would otherwise purchase the material had they not obtained it illegally. Of course, that is far from the truth.

Irrelevant. You are enjoying the benefits of their work without compensating them. They did not agree to work for you for free. Therefore you have no right to benefit from their work for free. It is the same as theft of services, ethically.

Again, there is no justification for this. You can try all day long but all it makes you look like is a spoiled little thief with a nasty little sense of entitlement.

You are NOT entitled to the work product of others, no matter how much you think you are.

WTF are you rambling about? I never said I was entitled to it. I said it wasn't the same as physical theft, ethically. Would you care to address that?

The "you" was just a matter of speaking. Not personal. Sorry, I just woke up.

 

[daniel1113]

Originally posted by: Amused
The "you" was just a matter of speaking. Not personal. Sorry, I just woke up.

That's fine, but I am still curious.

 

[Amused]

Originally posted by: daniel1113

Originally posted by: Amused
The "you" was just a matter of speaking. Not personal. Sorry, I just woke up.

That's fine, but I am still curious.

Theft of services is not physical theft either, but it's still theft.

 

[daniel1113]

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: daniel1113

Originally posted by: Amused
The "you" was just a matter of speaking. Not personal. Sorry, I just woke up.

That's fine, but I am still curious.

Theft of services is not physical theft either, but it's still theft.

Once again, that isn't the argument. Are they the same ethically? (Intellectual theft, as opposed to physical theft or theft of services)

 

[Amused]

Originally posted by: daniel1113

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: daniel1113

Originally posted by: Amused
The "you" was just a matter of speaking. Not personal. Sorry, I just woke up.

That's fine, but I am still curious.

Theft of services is not physical theft either, but it's still theft.

Once again, that isn't the argument. Are they the same ethically? (Intellectual theft, as opposed to physical theft or theft of services)

Yes, they are. You are benefiting form the work product of another without compensating them. You have no right to do that.

 

[daniel1113]

Originally posted by: Amused
Yes, they are. You are benefiting form the work product of another without compensating them. You have no right to do that.

So theft, in your opinion, is based on benefiting without compensation. Would that be correct?

 

[Thorny]

Originally posted by: daniel1113

Originally posted by: Amused
Yes, they are. You are benefiting form the work product of another without compensating them. You have no right to do that.

So theft, in your opinion, is based on benefiting without compensation. Would that be correct?

Looks like I'd better stop reading the newspaper over my coworkers shoulder now

 

[Czar]

Originally posted by: Thorny

Originally posted by: daniel1113

Originally posted by: Amused
Yes, they are. You are benefiting form the work product of another without compensating them. You have no right to do that.

So theft, in your opinion, is based on benefiting without compensation. Would that be correct?

Looks like I'd better stop reading the newspaper over my coworkers shoulder now

or ask your co worker for the newspaper when he is done with it, you must buy your own :Q

 

[Eeezee]

Originally posted by: MangoTBG
You dont need to unlock your wifi. If they get your IP, that's just it. They have your IP. They don't know if it's one computer or a router with dozens of computers. That's the point.

Hell, there's no guarantee that you were even home at the time the download started. Someone could have broken in to steal music on your internet connection

The RIAA has never had a strong case, I hope they lose a ton of money in legal fees

 

[pontifex]

Originally posted by: MangoTBG
You dont need to unlock your wifi. If they get your IP, that's just it. They have your IP. They don't know if it's one computer or a router with dozens of computers. That's the point.

yeah but if you have a bunch of mp3s on your pc and you don't have the cds or receipts that you bought them, isn't that enough proof that its most likely you who is doing it?

 

[Thorny]

Originally posted by: pontifex

Originally posted by: MangoTBG
You dont need to unlock your wifi. If they get your IP, that's just it. They have your IP. They don't know if it's one computer or a router with dozens of computers. That's the point.

yeah but if you have a bunch of mp3s on your pc and you don't have the cds or receipts that you bought them, isn't that enough proof that its most likely you who is doing it?

I have music on my pc that I don't have the disk for, but I still bought them. Do I have to erase the music on my pc just because the disk breaks or I lose it?? Besides, people are getting sued for SHARING thier music, not downloading it. If they ever had a case for suing dl'ers they would have been doing it long ago.

 

[pontifex]

Originally posted by: Thorny

Originally posted by: pontifex

Originally posted by: MangoTBG
You dont need to unlock your wifi. If they get your IP, that's just it. They have your IP. They don't know if it's one computer or a router with dozens of computers. That's the point.

yeah but if you have a bunch of mp3s on your pc and you don't have the cds or receipts that you bought them, isn't that enough proof that its most likely you who is doing it?

I have music on my pc that I don't have the disk for, but I still bought them. Do I have to erase the music on my pc just because the disk breaks or I lose it?? Besides, people are getting sued for SHARING thier music, not downloading it. If they ever had a case for suing dl'ers they would have been doing it long ago.

but how can i be stealing if i'm sharing the music? isn't that the whole basis of the lawsuit? wouldn't the person that is downloading it be stealing it?
and why isn't that person the one they are going after? but wait, they are aren't they? aren't people getting notices telling them to stop downloading copyrighted material? if they don't, action will be taken against them.

the whole thing doesn't make sense to me.

 

[Pacemaker]

I was in high school back in the napster days, and yes I downloaded some music (all of which was lost in a reformat), but for the most part I used it like the radio. I would listen to the songs on the album and if I liked it then I went and bought it, usually just so I had the legal right to keep the MP3's. I literally have about 30 CD's that are still in the shrink wrap because for a long time I preferred to listen to my MP3's.

Basically they have lost a steady customer because now unless I cannot live without the CD I don't buy it. # of CD's bought during the "free" music days 50-60 (in about 4 years). # of CDs bought since then 1 or 2 (in about 6 years). I really think that they shot themselves in the foot, yeah a few people were really abusing the system and had 100's of gigs of MP3's and would never buy anything, but there were many more like me who just wanted to know if the whole album was good or just the one song the record label would play was good.

In the end though it is the recording industries decision and I agree that they have the right to do with their property as they will, so I stopped once they started making a stand against it.