Se Connecter:     

Forum: General Discussion

Sujet: It's NEVER free! - Page: 2

Cette partie de ce topic est ancien et peut contenir des informations obselètes ou incorrectes

dj-e-lectric wrote :
For that matter anyone who has ever xerox'd a page from a book, magazine, photograph......alll copywrite violations too.


Not really, as with music you are allowed to copy for personal use. The issue of a record company, or publishing firm, is when the "art form" is reproduced and distributed with no enumeration for originator, or publisher. Technically, if you shared a home with 30 people, and purchased a CD it is your legal right to reproduce that CD 30 times. At least that is my understanding of the law on this issue.
 
TearEmUp wrote :
dj-e-lectric wrote :
For that matter anyone who has ever xerox'd a page from a book, magazine, photograph......alll copywrite violations too.


Not really, as with music you are allowed to copy for personal use. The issue of a record company, or publishing firm, is when the "art form" is reproduced and distributed with no enumeration for originator, or publisher. Technically, if you shared a home with 30 people, and purchased a CD it is your legal right to reproduce that CD 30 times. At least that is my understanding of the law on this issue.



In America there is no exception for "personal use" in the Digital Copywrite act, if you copy any digital media withour consent it is technically illegal. Also what most people don't know is it is illegal to edit and then SAVE music or videos whether for personal use or not. The digital copywrite act forbids editing or manipulating any media and SAVING in any digital format without consent....so boys and girls even though you may have aquired you music legally the minute you edit, mashup, extend beats, etc. and then save to a cd, .wav, mp3, mp4, etc. you are now illegal.

I do agree that SELLING pirate copies should be a mistermeaner civil violation, I am not sure to what degree. I have mixed emotions on p2p sharing as I believe MOST people would not have purchased 99% of the music they download. Most people I know would only purchase a very very small percentage of the music or video they download on P2P if they had to pay for it. They download it because it is available....it's like you really don't like football so you won't pay for cable tv package, but if you are bored at 4am and nothing else is on you watch it because it is there.

I also will say I have purchased copied media of some form (mostly out of print or no longer available selections as there is no other legal means to aquire them). I DO NOT; however; agree that ANYTHING you do with the media once you aquire it legally should be illegal (except selling copies). If I want to edit it, eat it, copy it for wallpaper or use it for birdcage lining once I buy it I buy it and I can do with it as I see fit.
 
islanboy wrote :
no perverted view of justice here nor did I state supporting any type of legislation. I was just adding on to @djrobinhamilton comment about his dad teaching him that nothing is free.


Fair enough, I stand corrected. Sorry for the misunderstanding, my bad :)

A Man and His Music wrote :
I heard this whining, crying, jerk-off on the radio today, making up all kind of excuses for his illegal behavior. Justice is not fair, has never been, and will never be, so get over it. You don't have to like the laws, but you do have to obey them. If you don't, take it like a man and stop crying.


So you would not mind living in a totalitarian fascist police state, eh? Who cares if the law is unfair as long as it doesn't concern you, eh?

Laws are always products of their time. One of the basic principles of democracy is that laws should represent the shared sense of justice of the whole population. When making a digital copy of an album is considered a bigger crime than stealing the actual album from the record store and punching the cashier to the face in the process, I don't think many people agree that it's fair.

I don't have a single pirate track on my computer at the moment, but I'm not against it either. The main reason is that I haven't yet seen water proof evidence that illegal downloading is hurting the music industry even remotely as much as they claim.

dj-e-lectric wrote :
For that matter anyone who has ever xerox'd a page from a book, magazine, photograph......alll copywrite violations too.

<LONG QUOTE SHORTENED>

Since this day will be realized long after I have died and moved on we must now fight the oppressive corporate megalopolies and government taxations that are ruingin our current lives.


For once, I agree with every single word you said...and I'm not too proud to admit it ;)
 
AuralCandy.Net wrote :

For once, I agree with every single word you said...and I'm not too proud to admit it ;)


If I put enough stuff out their sooner or later I knew we would agree on something.....
 
A Man and His Music wrote :
I heard this whining, crying, jerk-off on the radio today, making up all kind of excuses for his illegal behavior. Justice is not fair, has never been, and will never be, so get over it. You don't have to like the laws, but you do have to obey them. If you don't, take it like a man and stop crying.


So you would not mind living in a totalitarian fascist police state, eh? Who cares if the law is unfair as long as it doesn't concern you, eh?



You have got to be kidding me. I am old enough to have actually live in such a state called, America. I do not need to go into the whole history of the injustices my ancestors and I have endured in this country. The law was not changed because, Rosa Parks took a stand. She was arrested for breaking the law, that the majority of the state supported. The law was changed after the African-Americans stop riding the buses, causing a economic catastrophe. If you want to be the first one to protest a law by breaking it, go right ahead. However, you must be ready to accept the consequences. A lot of the brave ones have died for being first. There are a whole lot of laws I don't like, I just don't go around breaking them. There are ways to change them, that have worked since the beginning of this country. There are plenty of laws that have been erased from the books, but there is a way to do it. This is America, why can't I drink and drive if I want to? As a matter of fact I want to drink, sniff coke, and smoke some weed, while performing open heart surgery. There are some 14 year old girls I would love to have sex with, why can't I? But wait, there's more. There are some that want to have sex with 14 month old babies, why can't they? Whether you see the relevance or the impact of the law, means nothing. Which laws do you want to obey, and which ones do you want to break? Wait, you only want to obey the ones you like? The prisons are full of people that break laws, and you can best believe that they want to be protected while they are in there. Do you think the convicted rapist, wants protection from Bubba the rapist?
 
A Man and His Music wrote :
You have got to be kidding me. I am old enough to have actually live in such a state called, America.


I'm glad you at least realize that, there's still hope for you. However, as far as I know you live in a state called United States of America. USA is not the whole dual-continent.

A Man and His Music wrote :
I do not need to go into the whole history of the injustices my ancestors and I have endured in this country. The law was not changed because, Rosa Parks took a stand. She was arrested for breaking the law, that the majority of the state supported. The law was changed after the African-Americans stop riding the buses, causing a economic catastrophe.


You don't need to go into the whole history, yet you did....riiiight. You know, that I'm-black-so-I'm-an-expert-on-injustice -card is such a over-used chiche.

A Man and His Music wrote :
If you want to be the first one to protest a law by breaking it, go right ahead. However, you must be ready to accept the consequences. A lot of the brave ones have died for being first. There are a whole lot of laws I don't like, I just don't go around breaking them. There are ways to change them, that have worked since the beginning of this country. There are plenty of laws that have been erased from the books, but there is a way to do it. This is America, why can't I drink and drive if I want to? As a matter of fact I want to drink, sniff coke, and smoke some weed, while performing open heart surgery. There are some 14 year old girls I would love to have sex with, why can't I? But wait, there's more. There are some that want to have sex with 14 month old babies, why can't they? Whether you see the relevance or the impact of the law, means nothing. Which laws do you want to obey, and which ones do you want to break? Wait, you only want to obey the ones you like? The prisons are full of people that break laws, and you can best believe that they want to be protected while they are in there. Do you think the convicted rapist, wants protection from Bubba the rapist?


The next time you feel the urge to respond my posting, could you be bothered to actually read what I wrote? Honestly, I can't tell if you're truly incapable of understanding what I ment or are you intentionally misunderstanding just for kicks.

I never said that everyone should be allowed to do what they want. My point was that 1) the punishment should fit the crime and 2) severity of the punishment should reflect the majoritys sense of justice - not the interests of the ruling elite. Was I being clear enough this time?

PS: How about throwing in a paragraph every once in a while? It would make your writing seem less like random rambling and increace the possibility of someone actually bothering to read it.
 
1) The above post is not free of spelling mistakes (at the time of checking).
2) Why be so rude as to point out such mistakes? Mistakes which are usually caused by fast typing rather than as a result of a poor education.

Mistakes in spelling and grammer do not take away from the credibility of someone's arguement.
 
bagpuss wrote :
1) The above post is not free of spelling mistakes (at the time of checking).


Could you please point out where was I saying anything about spelling and grammar mistakes?

Honest typos can happen to anyone, that's completely normal...especially since many of us are not native English speakers. Mixing up a country and a continent hardly falls in that category. It's a factual mistake. Using paragraphs is a matter of structuring a text into a more readable form.

bagpuss wrote :
2) Why be so rude as to point out such mistakes? Mistakes which are usually caused by fast typing rather than as a result of a poor education.


Because I think that proper spelling and structure shows courtesy towards other readers. If one doesn't value his thoughts enough to be bothered to present them in a reader-friendly form, why should anyone else bother to read them?

I don't recall accusing anyone of being poorly educated. I'd say it's mostly just laziness.

bagpuss wrote :
Mistakes in spelling and grammer do not take away from the credibility of someone's arguement.


True to some extent, but the problem is that even the best idea is useless if nobody is able/willing to read it because of the bad presentation. However, I've noticed over the years that people who are not able/willing to write properly seldom have anything of substance to say.
 
AuralCandy.Net wrote :
bagpuss wrote :
1) The above post is not free of spelling mistakes (at the time of checking).


Could you please point out where was I saying anything about spelling and grammar mistakes?

Honest typos can happen to anyone, that's completely normal...especially since many of us are not native English speakers. Mixing up a country and a continent hardly falls in that category. It's a factual mistake. Using paragraphs is a matter of structuring a text into a more readable form.

bagpuss wrote :
2) Why be so rude as to point out such mistakes? Mistakes which are usually caused by fast typing rather than as a result of a poor education.


Because I think that proper spelling and structure shows courtesy towards other readers. If one doesn't value his thoughts enough to be bothered to present them in a reader-friendly form, why should anyone else bother to read them?

I don't recall accusing anyone of being poorly educated. I'd say it's mostly just laziness.

bagpuss wrote :
Mistakes in spelling and grammer do not take away from the credibility of someone's arguement.


True to some extent, but the problem is that even the best idea is useless if nobody is able/willing to read it because of the bad presentation. However, I've noticed over the years that people who are not able/willing to write properly seldom have anything of substance to say.


Damn....break out the ruler why don't you sister mary knuckles! It would be nice if we all could use perfect grammer, spelling and punctuation as in catholic school requirements, but some of us just have too bloody big swollen fingers for todays small keyboards
and typos do happen...especially at very late hours when we really should eb sleeping but we aren't because most of us are vampires!
 
dj-e-lectric wrote :
It would be nice if we all could use perfect grammer, spelling and punctuation as in catholic school requirements, but some of us just have too bloody big swollen fingers for todays small keyboards and typos do happen


Now which part of the following quote you didn't understand?

AuralCandy.Net wrote :
Honest typos can happen to anyone, that's completely normal


Are you truly incapable of understanding the difference between an occasional typo and a badly structured lazy writing style, or are you just trolling?
 
AuralCandy.Net wrote :
dj-e-lectric wrote :
It would be nice if we all could use perfect grammer, spelling and punctuation as in catholic school requirements, but some of us just have too bloody big swollen fingers for todays small keyboards and typos do happen


Now which part of the following quote you didn't understand?

AuralCandy.Net wrote :
Honest typos can happen to anyone, that's completely normal


Are you truly incapable of understanding the difference between an occasional typo and a badly structured lazy writing style, or are you just trolling?



I just think you were being unneccessarily (sorry if it is mispelled, but I truly forget how to spell it...and don't really care because anyone educated enough to be readin it will know what I mean) critical of the man's writing style....this is a casual and informal forum where no one said we needed to pass an Englist exam as a requirement to post stuff.

You responded eloquently to his posting so you obvioulsy understood it and that is all that matters...hell it beats all the text messages I get from people that have fewer vowels in them than a baseball boxscore.

Man, just when I thought we were getting along so well, bff:)

PS. I wouldn't call it trolling, but most readers, by now, have probably detected a slight bit of sarcasm in a lot of my posts to "lighten the mood" of threads that are getting ticky tacky and off topic. It is just my nature. Trust me I am a riot at Denny's at 3am after a good night at the club. The Sister Mary Knuckles (reference from "Blues Brothers") would have killed and had people spitting milk out of their noses.

I know it is hard sometimes to detect the sarcastic comedic remarks in writing because you can not see my body language and hear my voice tone to differenciate the sarcasm from a truely scornful reply. Maybe I will put stage direction in my posts form now on. Like {this next line is a sarcastic response to the above quote} then I will state my snide remarks and close with {my sarcasm has now ended, back to the intellectual reparte}.
 
@ Aural, E-lectric, and anyone else who wants to play grammar police. Once again, I STRONGLY suggest you take this type of conversation to PM. As stated this is an informal forum. Thanks for understanding.
 
 
hmm
 
dat_boi_tj wrote :
but as a downloader, the damages are only equal to 99 cent per song due to the fact that 99 cent is all that they would have earned if he were to purchase the song... as where an uploader could possibly be 22,000 dollars because that is 22,000 potential customers


EXACTLY! I don't understand why the downloader is being raped when it is the uploader who should be. Actually, my conspiracy theory is that it's all a hoax to try and deter people from illegally downloading music. Notice how all these reported cases are people who are being charged for dowloading 30 songs or less? If they really wanted to set an example they would go after some kid who's downloaded a thousand songs and sue them for 100 BILLION DOLLARS (said in a Dr. Evil voice) but that would just seem even more ridiculous because I don't even think Enron was sued for that much. So they always make it a more "digestable" amount so the general public are more likely to believe it. Hell, downloaders of kiddie porn aren't sued for that kind of money, why should a music downloader be? Don't believe everything you read. I'd be willing to bet everything I have that the people being sued astronomical amounts are "planted" so the record companies have a way of setting an example. Think about it. Some record company approaches a person who's downloaded 30 songs and says "if you're willing to go through the embarrassment of being sued a huge amount of money for downloading music so we can make an example of you, we'll pay you $100,000.00 as long as you keep your mouth shut".

Things to think about:

If the record companies wanted to, they could sue thousands of people a day for copyright infringement, yet you only hear about a case once in awhile. Record companies could easily make they're money back if they went after every person downloading music and sued them for a reasonable amount. Yet they're supposedly going after the odd person here and there at $22,500 per song. $22,500.00 seems like a large sum of money, but it's small change in the grand scheme of things. Do really think the record company is saying "Yay, now that we got our $22,500.00 we can finally break even". Could you imagine if murder was treated in the same manner? What if the law was aware of thousands of people being murdered yearly but just chose to go after one or two "to make an example" and ignore the rest?

Notice how the record companies are never named, and the names of the artists who's music has been illegally downloaded are never mentioned? Because if they were, that would put a "face" to those holding the axe. But the truth is they are never named because it would create public sympathy for the person being sued.

The fines are ridiculously high, and not proportional to the crime because it makes for good newspaper headlines.

I GUARANTEE there are people employed by record companies who have illegally downloaded music on their iPods but the record company wouldn't go after them because that would be an embarrassment to the record company itself. (Notice how you never hear of some record company intern being fired and sued for downloading music, because if they were the record company would have to be named.)

I'd be willing to bet that the profiles of the people being sued for downloading music reflect the demographic of the people doing the most illegal downloading (e.g. the twenty-something middle class male, the 30 something mid-west housewife). This is no coincidence. The record company wants to instill the most fear into the groups of people taking the most money out of their pockets by putting certain archetypes on the chopping block so people will think in the back of their head "that could be me". The only profile they steer clear from is the sweet faced thirteen year old girl downloading Jonas Brothers, because there would be public rage and outcry if that girl was sued for a million. It's like that scene from the movie "Artificial Intelligence" where the mob cheers as the ugly old rusty robots are blown to bits, but when a sweet faced 12 year old boy robot is put on the chopping block the mob suddenly boos the executioner.

These reported cases of people (supposedly) being sued for ridiculous amounts of money is nothing more than fear mongering perpetuated by the record companies to stop you from downloading music... AND IT'S WORKING... AND THEY'RE LAUGHING AT YOU! Don't believe everything you read people.
 
By the way, after reading my previous post, check out this article I found on-line about a female college student who was fined $4000.00 for illegally downloading music:

"Fisher wasted no time telling her story to friends, family and nearly anyone who would listen, she said.

“I just don’t want to see it happen to everybody else,” she said.

Many of Fisher’s family and friends, including avid music downloaders, stopped downloading music from file-sharing services after she told them about her run-in with the recording industry, she said.

She told her boss at Corbin about her problem, as well as the other RAs. The RAs bought her an iTunes music store gift card to help her restock her music collection, which she had erased after being sued, she said.

She called a meeting for students living on her floor and told them about her legal troubles. She said their shocked faces showed they got the RIAA’s message: This could happen to anyone who illegally downloads."

Too funny. Read between the lines people! Let me break down how the media is trying to manipulate you:

“I just don’t want to see it happen to everybody else,” ...the media telling you "this could happen to you"

Many of Fisher’s family and friends, including avid music downloaders, stopped downloading music from file-sharing services after she told them about her run-in with the recording industry ...do like good Johnny does.

"She told her boss at Corbin about her problem, as well as the other RAs. The RAs bought her an iTunes music store gift card to help her restock her music collection, which she had erased after being sued" ... I can just see record company execs jerking off to the photo of the RA handing over the iTunes gift card. Can you say "photo-op"?

"She called a meeting for students living on her floor and told them about her legal troubles. She said their shocked faces showed they got the RIAA’s message: This could happen to anyone who illegally downloads." ...mission accomplished!

Yup, the record company covered all the bases on this one. Covered 20 year old college student demographic... check. Got across the "this could happen to you" message... check. Promoted legal downloading through iTunes... check. Promoted good downloading practices by illustrating that the victim wanted to spread the word of the possible consequences... check.

Cut to a 50's style propaganda newsreel with cheesy music playing in the background with the girl saying "I used to download music illegally, and look what happened to me!". Then picture a big fat record executive posing with the girl while shaking her hand and both of them holding on to each side of an iTunes gift card. Cue cheesy commentator voice-over "Well kids, Suzy's learned her lesson, so remember, be a good citizen and don't illegally download music. THE END".
 
Hey Dizzy.
I don't think the Cheezy 50s newsreels have gone away. How many DVD's have you guys watched with the "You wouldn't steel a car" (and so on) anti copying vid at the begining. Oh yea and remember the "Home tapeing is killing" music adverts.

Daz
 
dizzyrocks2001 wrote :
By the way, after reading my previous post, check out this article I found on-line about a female college student who was fined $4000.00 for illegally downloading music:


Do you have a link to that article?
 
That isnt true anymore. The case where the woman had to pay millions is an old case where the law was in effect. Now the penalties are different. Not sure exactly what they are but something along on the of ISP dropping you.
 
I've kept quiet up until now, but feel I have to say something (well... why not ;-) )

What gets me more than anything on this subject is not the fact the people are illegally downlaoding/sharing etc. 'cos it's been happening for as long as there has been media to record to. Tablet, Paper (obviously not for music) then Cassettes, Video, MiniDisc, CD, etc... solid state memory is only the current evolution of this.

I, as a kid, used to tape the charts off the radio and play them at house parties - it's how I started DJing. We used to ask friends to record LP's on to tape. Did we ever consider this to be piracy...? I think not...

The crux of the issue here is the record industry's inability to embrace modern technology and use it to their advantage. All they have tried to do is to protect their archaic business models and kick up a fuss when things don't go their way. Maybe we need a "music crunch" to go with the "credit crunch" and see a few of these execs go the same way as the bankers!!!!

All they have tried to do is lock us in to the existing models: First we had CD's that installed "root-kits" on to your PC as soon as you inserted them. Then we had attempts at DRM - where Apple apears to have been the winner simply because you are locked in to their software/hardware. However burning a bunch of DRM'd tracks to a CD and then re-ripping them soon got round that!!!

Now we find services offering tracks DRM free (including Apple), or Napster - now gone legal - offering unlimited downloads for a monthly fee. Nokia with their "Comes With Music" service which offers the same. You don't hear the record coimpanies wanting to shut these services down or take them to court. So why not...?

It appears the record industry is unwilling or unable to change - as it was cost them money and eat in to their big fat profits.

My other biggest gripe is that rather than fight this themsleves, they've lobbied every government to do the work for them. Now the governments (not the record campanies) are spending millions in implementing uniforcable laws and trying to enforce ISPs to monitor p2p traffic at their own expense and cut off the illegal filesharers.

All at the grand cost of zero to the RIAA!!!!!

Before we get to the Nirvana (see I worked Kurt back in ... lol) outlined earlier - where money doesn't exist and we do all of this for love - I think the Napster/Nokia models will win the day. Pay a flat monthly subscription and take what you want and let the bean counters fight over who get's paid what elsewhere...

If you could convert a million fileshares to legal subscription holders for $10 a month, the industry would make $120m per year and they would stop complaining. And if most these filesharers are of the demographics assumed, $10 a month won't be an issue...

BTW, I prefer the $ as it works out cheaper for me as a Brit... LOL Howver I know for a fact that it would come in to force here as £10 a month - as it does with most other things...

Cheers,

Roy
 
91%