GG Posted July 24, 2008 Share Posted July 24, 2008 That isn't accurate at all -- most people download music and software because it's convenient, and if they didn't download it, they would never purchase it. Just like people tend to steal less cars because it's not as convenient as stealing a pack of gum. Keep up with your logical progressions. But even if we accept your premise as true, how do you explain the massive penalties for downloading vs stealing? "For stealing the DVD you could face no more than up to 1 year imprisonment and up to a $100,000 fine; for downloading the same material you could face statutory damages of up to $3,300,000, costs and attorney's fees (ie: the other guy's attorneys), as well as up to 1 year imprisonment, and up to a $100,000 fine." Oh, I don't know. Why are there different penalties for users of illegal substances than for distributors? Ever consider that potential volumes play a role in the penlty differences? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chilly Posted July 24, 2008 Share Posted July 24, 2008 Just like people tend to steal less cars because it's not as convenient as stealing a pack of gum. Keep up with your logical progressions. Oh, I don't know. Why are there different penalties for users of illegal substances than for distributors? Ever consider that potential volumes play a role in the penlty differences? Technically, he's correct (the best kind of correct). Dowling v. United States Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
justnzane Posted July 24, 2008 Share Posted July 24, 2008 Technically, he's correct (the best kind of correct). Dowling v. United States That is a bush-league ruling there. The guy was selling live recordings of Elvis. Now, if you record some conversation on your answer machine, you technically own the dialogue, and the other party of the conversation doesn't unless he or she has a recording of their own. Since Elvis and more specifically the record label did not record those feeds, the record label is not entitled to any cash from the sale of the distribution of such recordings. If anyone has a case for any part of the money, it is Elvis's estate and not the record label. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GG Posted July 24, 2008 Share Posted July 24, 2008 Technically, he's correct (the best kind of correct). Dowling v. United States He's correct that the law treats the two acts differently. He's incorrect in saying it's not a real crime and that it's ethically ok to do. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chilly Posted July 24, 2008 Share Posted July 24, 2008 He's correct that the law treats the two acts differently. He's incorrect in saying it's not a real crime and that it's ethically ok to do. The only argument I've seen put forth by him in this thread is: "I'm been flamed for saying this before, but it's a very important point -- STEALING IS NOT THE SAME AS COPYRIGHT INFRINGEMENT." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GG Posted July 24, 2008 Share Posted July 24, 2008 The only argument I've seen put forth by him in this thread is: "I'm been flamed for saying this before, but it's a very important point -- STEALING IS NOT THE SAME AS COPYRIGHT INFRINGEMENT." All the while saying that copyright infringement is inocous, so it should be more tolerated by the creator than a theft of personal property. Running over someone with a car while drunk vs shooting them in the head are different offenses, but the guy is still dead. ps - you also have to use his history of defending copyright infringement as not being a real crime. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chilly Posted July 24, 2008 Share Posted July 24, 2008 All the while saying that copyright infringement is inocous, so it should be more tolerated by the creator than a theft of personal property. Running over someone with a car while drunk vs shooting them in the head are different offenses, but the guy is still dead. ps - you also have to use his history of defending copyright infringement as not being a real crime. I decided to take a look at his history, since I didn't remember him saying its not a real crime, nor him saying that its ethical to pirate music. I did, however, remember a long thread from last year about music piracy, so I decided to take a look at that one. From this post, he flat out states "Yeah, I was never trying to imply that it wasn't illegal, just that it wasn't theft." In fact, no where in that debate does he argue that its not a real crime. I also looked further back through some discussions about DRM, piracy, and the like, and didn't see anything to suggest he didn't think it was a real crime. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fezmid Posted July 25, 2008 Share Posted July 25, 2008 Just like people tend to steal less cars because it's not as convenient as stealing a pack of gum. Keep up with your logical progressions. If you're saying that everyone who downloads something would have purchased it if it weren't available to download, then you're delusional. Oh, I don't know. Why are there different penalties for users of illegal substances than for distributors? Ever consider that potential volumes play a role in the penlty differences? Why are you comparing distribution with "consumption?" Your argument was that downloading a CD reduced the value of the 1,000,000 CDs by 1... Therefore everyone who downloads a CD should be found liable for the theft of a physical CD because the value is the same. The person who is distributing the illegal copies can get a greater penalty, but my quote was specifically referencing CONSUMING - download vs stealing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fezmid Posted July 25, 2008 Share Posted July 25, 2008 All the while saying that copyright infringement is inocous, so it should be more tolerated by the creator than a theft of personal property. Running over someone with a car while drunk vs shooting them in the head are different offenses, but the guy is still dead. ps - you also have to use his history of defending copyright infringement as not being a real crime. BlueFire already pointed this out -- but go ahead and find ONE post where I say downloading music is fine. Just one. I hate the RIAA - they're evil in that they shoot first and ask questions later, knowing that they have more money than normal Joe Users and when it looks like they're going to lose the case, they drop it and restart it again costing innocent families tens of thousands in defense money - but yes, downloading music is and should be llegal (I just disagree with the penalties and the RIAA's methods). Remember, you're the one who said that downloading an album reduces the value of the 1,000,000 albums by 1 -- which is more correct than being able to sue someone for $3.3M. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Adams Posted July 25, 2008 Author Share Posted July 25, 2008 Nice straw man argument. Please point out where in this thread I advocated such a position. I was replying to your complaint that people make them seem like "the antichrist" And I was pointing out that stealing from the antichrist is still stealing. If you want to know if it's stealing, ask the bands if they would rather have the money or have you steal their music. I know there are some bands who say they don't give a sh-- but most would rather have the cash. And by the way, that cash pays more people than the band or the bigwig at Sony. It helps pay for the 50 bands who didn't make it but Sony took a chance on. (I have a buddy who's made over 1.5M with 3 records labels in 3 bands--who never had albums released!) Steal away. The impunity with which it's done justifies the punishment in my book. I love when these kids get whammied and the parents get !@#$ed! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fezmid Posted July 25, 2008 Share Posted July 25, 2008 If you want to know if it's stealing, ask the bands if they would rather have the money or have you steal their music. I know there are some bands who say they don't give a sh-- but most would rather have the cash. Here: "A new rock group featuring former members of The Clash and Generation X has taken a novel approach to the issue of piracy by urging their fans to copy their music." " http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/4683875.stm And here: http://www.mtv.com/news/articles/1565749/2...727/stars.jhtml And here: "Only 2,500 copies of this record were produced; in response, Lee and Moody encouraged fans to download the band's older songs from the Internet" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evanescence Not quite the same, but shows that artists don't particularly like the RIAA: http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2007/jun/29/business.pop Yes, this isn't "most" bands - I just took the first few results from my search - but there are a LOT of bands out there with the same sentiment. As was discussed earlier in the thread, the artists don't get much from the record sales - it's from other merchandise and shows. So, if the band who made the music says "Please download our music" (and means it), but the label still says no, then what do you think? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fezmid Posted July 25, 2008 Share Posted July 25, 2008 Steal away. The impunity with which it's done justifies the punishment in my book. I love when these kids get whammied and the parents get !@#$ed! Do you love it when they sue people who have never even used a computer before too? http://news.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=08/07/05/0210220 Or how about when they do this? http://news.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=08/06/13/1156218 There's no justice being done with their shotgun approach, regardless of which side of the fence you stand. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GG Posted July 25, 2008 Share Posted July 25, 2008 Do you love it when they sue people who have never even used a computer before too? http://news.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=08/07/05/0210220 Or how about when they do this? http://news.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=08/06/13/1156218 There's no justice being done with their shotgun approach, regardless of which side of the fence you stand. Keep hiding behind the freedom foundations' obfuscations of the real issues. The woman's kids did the file sharing, in her house on the internet connection that she paid for. The wonderful folks at slash dot don't provide minute details whether her kids were seeders, who are the equivalent of illegal distributors in our other examples. According to your logic, drivers of getaway cars should be held innocent as well. Copyright infringement is stealing, even though you're clinging to the technicality that since there was no physical possession, there was no theft. Apparently the Supreme Court disagrees with your view because they don't distinguish illegality between theft and infringement. Perhaps you should link the Grokster opinions to validate your case. The shot gun approach is because very other method didn't work. People just love free stuff. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cynical Posted July 25, 2008 Share Posted July 25, 2008 According to your logic, drivers of getaway cars should be held innocent as well. Unless she was knowingly allowing it to happen, your example is bad. The shot gun approach is because very other method didn't work. People just love free stuff. Amazing. How in the world did we let this country get so screwed up. We need tort reform to protect companies from "mean" sue happy consumers, but companies are allowed to sue anybody and everybody - repeatedly - until somebody coughs up the cash. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GG Posted July 25, 2008 Share Posted July 25, 2008 Amazing. How in the world did we let this country get so screwed up. We need tort reform to protect companies from "mean" sue happy consumers, but companies are allowed to sue anybody and everybody - repeatedly - until somebody coughs up the cash. Perhaps you're ignoring the initial part of these cases where people "share" vast amounts of copyrighted property against the law. Perhaps if Tracy Lee... errr the mother... instilled values in the kids that stealing or copying someone else's work without their permission is unethical and illegal, then the lawyers would have something else to do. It really bugs me when people invoke the little guy defense to absolve shady behavior by the little guy. Believe it or not, but the RIAA would like to have better things to do than have lawyers chasing little guys. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Adams Posted July 25, 2008 Author Share Posted July 25, 2008 Here: "A new rock group featuring former members of The Clash and Generation X has taken a novel approach to the issue of piracy by urging their fans to copy their music." Yes, this isn't "most" bands - I just took the first few results from my search - but there are a LOT of bands out there with the same sentiment. As was discussed earlier in the thread, the artists don't get much from the record sales - it's from other merchandise and shows. So, if the band who made the music says "Please download our music" (and means it), but the label still says no, then what do you think? Great. Nothing proves my point more. Here's an idea. If a band doesn't want to work with the RIAA, why not put the music out themselves? When a band contracts with a label, they get the benefit (the millions before the album is even produced, the promotion, the expertise, etc.) and also the obligations (allowing the RIAA to act on their behalf against infringers). The bands make a choice. Now more than ever, there are other options to signing these contracts. The people who don't sign have a choice of what to do with their music, but if they choose to sign with a label, tough stojan. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chilly Posted July 25, 2008 Share Posted July 25, 2008 And I was pointing out that stealing from the antichrist is still stealing. If you want to know if it's stealing, ask the bands if they would rather have the money or have you steal their music. I know there are some bands who say they don't give a sh-- but most would rather have the cash. And by the way, that cash pays more people than the band or the bigwig at Sony. It helps pay for the 50 bands who didn't make it but Sony took a chance on. (I have a buddy who's made over 1.5M with 3 records labels in 3 bands--who never had albums released!) Steal away. The impunity with which it's done justifies the punishment in my book. I love when these kids get whammied and the parents get !@#$ed! I've never argued against the fact that pirating music is pirating music, hence why your response to my post was a straw man. And how many times do I have to say it? I DO NOT PIRATE MUSIC. Christ. Keep hiding behind the freedom foundations' obfuscations of the real issues. The woman's kids did the file sharing, in her house on the internet connection that she paid for. The wonderful folks at slash dot don't provide minute details whether her kids were seeders, who are the equivalent of illegal distributors in our other examples. According to your logic, drivers of getaway cars should be held innocent as well. The EFF wasn't talked about or linked to in his posts, although your first desire to jump all over them is amusing. Copyright infringement is stealing, even though you're clinging to the technicality that since there was no physical possession, there was no theft. Apparently the Supreme Court disagrees with your view because they don't distinguish illegality between theft and infringement. Perhaps you should link the Grokster opinions to validate your case. We've already established that the law does distinguish between theft and infringement, something you even agreed to. Fez has also never stated, unlike what you keep claiming, that infringement is legal or ethical. The shot gun approach is because very other method didn't work. People just love free stuff. They might actually see it drop if they released some reasonably priced, DRM-free, high quality songs in multiple formats. If nothing else, they'd see an increase in their profits, from people like me who would buy songs instead of listen to Sirius all the time. Perhaps you're ignoring the initial part of these cases where people "share" vast amounts of copyrighted property against the law. Perhaps if Tracy Lee... errr the mother... instilled values in the kids that stealing or copying someone else's work without their permission is unethical and illegal, then the lawyers would have something else to do. Technically, making copywrited material available (aka sharing) isn't against the law. Transferring it to someone who hasn't bought a license to use it is. It really bugs me when people invoke the little guy defense to absolve shady behavior by the little guy. Believe it or not, but the RIAA would like to have better things to do than have lawyers chasing little guys. A straw man argument, since the people invoking the little guy defense have been doing it to point out the shady behavior by the big guy, not to absolve shady behavior by the little guy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fezmid Posted July 25, 2008 Share Posted July 25, 2008 Keep hiding behind the freedom foundations' obfuscations of the real issues. The woman's kids did the file sharing, in her house on the internet connection that she paid for. The wonderful folks at slash dot don't provide minute details whether her kids were seeders, who are the equivalent of illegal distributors in our other examples. Can you find any proof to back up those claims, or are you just making it up? If she never bought a computer, how'd her kids get one....? If she never bought a computer, why does she have an ISP...? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ieatcrayonz Posted July 25, 2008 Share Posted July 25, 2008 That isn't accurate at all -- most people download music and software because it's convenient, and if they didn't download it, they would never purchase it. PM me for info on Bills DVDs ($2/game + $4 shipping + optional tip) (Bills/Raiders AFC Championship, Comeback, Bills/Vikings Shootout, Bills/Dolphins Snow Bowl, 31-0, Bills/Jaguars '03, JPL & WM vs Broncos, Bills/Broncos "Sounds of the Game," Bills/Titans preseason '04 (low), Bills/Jags (TBD Tailgate) '04, Bills/Seahawks '04 (low); Bills/Browns '04, Bills/Packers Scrimmage '05, Bills/Texans '05 If they won't purchase it, why try to sell it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Adams Posted July 25, 2008 Author Share Posted July 25, 2008 I've never argued against the fact that pirating music is pirating music, hence why your response to my post was a straw man. And how many times do I have to say it? I DO NOT PIRATE MUSIC. Christ. Relax man--I'm not accusing you of it. A few have admitted to stealing music and those people are in this thread so though you're enjoying showing off your new knowledge of the concept of "straw man," it's use here is inappropriate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts