Should ISPs Pay for Music?

[Ne007]

A scheme that would shift the cost of digital music from users to Internet service providers is gaining international support.
August 26, 2005

Though legal forms of digital distribution of music like iTunes and Rhapsody that charge users to listen to songs are gaining steam, some experts propose a more radical system for collecting revenues: making Internet service providers pay.

“There should be a tax on the people who really make money off the free music, which is the computer makers, the CD burner makers, the MP3 player makers, [and] the ISPs,” said Steve Gordon, an entertainment lawyer and author of The Future of the Music Business.

One new ISP, PlayLouderMSP, set to launch later this year, is bundling unlimited downloads with the regular cost of broadband. It announced its first deal with a major label, Sony BMG, early this week (see U.K. ISP Wins Music Contract).

RIAA Coming Around

File-sharing, the bane of the entertainment industry since the late 1990s, hasn’t been all bad—even for musical artists and labels. Peer-to-peer (P2P) technology for quickly and efficiently distributing files is now catching on for legitimate purposes, though major labels remain cautious and resistant.

Following the U.S. Supreme Court’s ruling against the business practices of P2P file-sharing networks in June (see Grokster Loses), even Mitch Bainwol, chairman and CEO of the Recording Industry Association of America, had kind words for legit P2P.

“The Supreme Court has helped to power the digital future for legitimate online businesses including legal file-sharing networks,” said Mr. Bainwol. He called the decision “an opportunity that will bring the entertainment and technology communities even closer together.”

Read the Rest

Read the complete article (http://www.zeropaid.com/news/5642/Should+ISPs+Pay+for+Music%3F/)

[mcovey]

why pay?

they cant track everything that is downloaded. all this will make them do is block more ports and disconnect downloading users. Will not solve downloading because you can't find them all, and you just lose customers, and then money.

edit:
ok i only read the title. thought that the record industry was going to sue isps instead of sharers, to try and get them to crack down on sharing. DON'T GET ANY IDEAS.

[moneoa]

Isp's will never pay for it, it might look that way on paper but in the end it is still us the user, the consumer who will bear the costs.

I think its a good idea, might actually make it legit if you paid a levy on your internet service.
The question is at what point would the ISPs be asking too much?

You have to figure greed would find its way in there until we pay out the ass to an isp for the goods we download for free for the same reasons.

Because it costs too goddamn much

[Lehk]

won't happen. all the buisnesses which use the internet for buisness activities would throw a fit if they had to pay for mp3 piracy, and only applying the levy to personal internet access would violate equal protection.

[DigitalJunkie]

I don't care for today's music anymore, so I don't download any music. However, I do pay for a plan that gives you more bandwidth than the basic. Don't we paid for what you get already???

[earlymusic1925]

Hi everyone, having your ISP pay for the file-sharing programs could be a good thing. Maybe a tax of 1-5 dollars a month could be passed along to the consumer, that would go to a pool to help the artist. They then need to figure out which artists are downloaded the most for that given month, to give then the agreed portion of the pooled money. Once these things are worked out, they should make all the file-sharing programs officially legal. Let people share whatever they want to, since they are doing it anyway. This is "earlymusic1925", also known as "philcord". I am the person responsible for putting most of the recordings that are before 1925 on kazaa. I am using kazaa lite resurrection 0.7.6 F. If you type in the search Billy Murray, and make it an unlimited search, you should be able find the user name philcord or earlymusic1925, then do a "find more from the same user" and you can see all the mp3s that I have.

[boogiedan]

nah no1 should pay for any music
candy for nothing in God's Beautifull Kingdom

[Signa]

i had a simular though a while back. but instead of making the ISPs pay, it should be the RIAA hosting the service, making the money. if they offerd fast reliable internet for those who like to download music, they could stand to make a bit of money. its too bad they shot themselves in the foot when they started suing people. i dont think any downloader can trust them enough now for a system like this to work.

[eivioolla]

No, no one, under any circumstances, should give more power (money) to this copyright-mafia. They will find a way to use it against us.

[SJ56]

It's a good idea; but should be optional, as not every users download music or video.
Don't know if it would be easy technically to enforce.

[black_magiic]

I personally think its a good idea. Even if the isp's charged an extra 5 bucks a month. If it would shut the record industry up it would be worth it.

[ProjectRAGE]

$5 exta....Id pay that...but then if they get money hungry itll go up and up and up..now f that.

[Ne007]

I personally think its a good idea. Even if the isp's charged an extra 5 bucks a month. If it would shut the record industry up it would be worth it.


Nothing will shut them up until they have ALL the money. If they did get the $5 a month then I'd have to shut off my internet connection...I'm not going to give them a single dime.

[the great one]

Here in Canada we already pay a levy on cdr's which is ridiculous.Not everybody that buys cdr's or has the internet uses it to download music.

I'm sure the recording industry had this in mind the whole time.They figured they would use a scare tactic like suing people,then people would accept the ideas the industry comes up with to compensate them for imaginary losses.They win.

If it looks like crap and smells like crap,it's crap period.Don't fall for this BS.

[black_magiic]

It still comes down to the fact that what we do (downloading music) is illegal. If paying 5 bucks a month extra means it becomes legal and it will shut them up for good then I say go for it. There also needs to be a stipulation that it STAYS that way and they cant jerk it around until you need to go without food to pay your net bill.

[FrozenShadow23]

That's bullshit. It's like making road construction workers pay a tax for those who street race. Just a stupid idea.

[goldcomet]

I am the one who went by voodoohippie a few months ago and you know I use to post hate messages about the RIAA. Well to make things short it’s a great idea. Listen I’ve even done the legal services for $9/Mo so if I had to pay $5/Mo for what I do now and know people won’t bug the crap out of me anymore and say I’m stealing I’ll go for it. Mostly the uneducated women (sorry for the women who know about computers like my beautiful GF I now have who is very computer literate) bitch about how I am stealing from the poor billion-dollar industry and I should be shot. I laugh at such silly thinking and ask them if they ever remember using a tape recorder to record their favorite song or borrowed their friend’s records and recorded them without buying them. They after awhile would say yes and I can go on.

Back to the topic: I remember saying that the Downloads should be Ad supported and in a way this way they would be. Think about it the ISP’s could legally boast about how fast you could Download an entire album like they use to in the Napster days Legally without fear of getting sued. After all that is the real reason most (75-90% of all computer users) use their computer for anyway. Why do you think Microsoft came out with the Windows XP Media Center edition and manufactures like Sony make the Media Center PC? Its because a Home computer should not only be a work horse but an entertainment system that houses 400 Gigs or more of Music and Movies without ever having to look for a CD or DVD when friends come to the house. Just click and go. And for a minimal fee of say $5/mo it would pay for what we do. Now for the person who says how do they keep track of which artists get the most attention? The answer is right in front of your nose. It’s the number of sources on say Limewire. Look for a band We’ll say Creed only for example purposes and to make a point. The copyright police would install LimeWire Pro 4.9.28 or latest version of whatever software. Search groups like Creed, Nickelback, Black Label Society, Alter bridge, Bad Company, Warrant, on and on. They could have their little Bots do searches and for every user the artists would get a commission. So if people like your work and share it you get paid. If you suck you don’t get squat. Love that system (Laughing out loud). And too home users would pay say a few cents to the artists for Mp3 players, recordable CD’s, DVD’s and so on. In return copy protection would be made illegal by the US government. Fair use would once again prevail. In fact the internet as a whole would feed the artists and they would welcome the Internet not curse the day we figured out how to share what a concept. Please people think with your minds and put animosity aside for a while and please try to think of this as a good marketing tool to narrow the gap between consumer and artists or intellectual property. Everyone can copy just like they are doing already no one gets hurt. In fact what is really crazy their may not need to be a recording company at all it could be artists hiering IT staff so they can put their works on P2P and allow sharing of their works and they are getting paid wow that is so damn kewl. Well maybe we need the RIAA to do all the research. But then again the FBI could do that and throw away the RIAA. The government could decide how much an artist gets and the ISP who had the most downloading a certain artist could even have a chart of the best Rock bands and to not leave you Rap kiddies out the best rappers that can rap for 15 minutes straight without taking a break to get a drink. This is the system that should have happened when Napster came out and the artists would be singing praise to Shawn Fanning for his hard work and it would have been the #1 clearing house that did all the research all by itself with its servers. Can’t believe how the record industry let that idea slip by when they wanted to play Father to 60 million file-sharers who spent hrs a day running their p2p clients. Let the dollars roll in and let the files be so cheap you may as well call them free for the consumers.

[Mels_Smileys45]

Greed. That word gets thrown around a lot, doesn't it? IF one really thinks about what defines greed, An "excessive desire to acquire or possess more than what one needs or deserves." Hmmm, who fits the bill more? Some one who labors to produce a desirable product and expects to get paid or someone who sits on their ass and thinks these people should just hand over everything in a handbag, free of charge no less. Maybe glutton or skinflynt describes the later better, the jury is out on that one. At any rate, its foolish to think you deserve these things for free. Its great to be able to get all the music and movies we want, enjoy it. But please, please don't argue that you were or are tired of being charged for thier services or were unhappy with the product(s) because if thats so true, why the hell are you still so obsessed with owning it!? Simple, it still has value. Only now you know how to shoplift without getting arrested.

As far as tax goes, bad idea. How the fuck do you tax an illegal activity anyway? Thats like the drug tax laws. Its a catch 22.

[eivioolla]

Well sorry Mel, but I don't think being able to freely exchange published information with our peers is more than we, as human beings, deserve. I hope you can still enjoy your guilt trip though, feeling sorry for the RIAA/MPAA being ripped off by greedy bastards like you.

[teto]

Consider that when Hitler invaded Poland, the European powers tried to compromise with him, tried an appeasement policy. It wasn't until Germany invaded France that people realized, "Oh hey, he's not going to stop, is he?"

In a similar fashion, since paying $5 to the government every month would not solve the root problem, that is that the oligarchs with power over our media need to be made powerless, since it wouldn't help the issue at hand, it would just end up going into the "Let's sue more people" coffers of the RIAA. Money to the artists? Don't make me laugh! It'd never get past Murdoch's cartel.

I would support paying $5 a month to the government, to fund a collection agency on wealthy executives who overshot their power and need to be taken down and replaced by better people. On a fund to support people fighting these monsters in court. On a fund to promote the campaign to force every company to make its finances open to the American people, or a fund to sustain people who go through those open finances, and find the important parts the rest of us want to know.

...but $5 a month to MGM, so they won't sue me? I think not!

[origin]

bad idea 2 thumbs down!!!

l8

[Mels_Smileys45]

Well sorry Mel, but I don't think being able to freely exchange published information with our peers is more than we, as human beings, deserve. I hope you can still enjoy your guilt trip though, feeling sorry for the RIAA/MPAA being ripped off by greedy bastards like you.


To a point youre right, BUT ---

Information is another term being used very loosely. If you were sharing some kind of knowledge or something people needed to know, I'm all for it and see nothing wrong with it. What is being shared on p2p is entertainment. Thats not a thing you need to get by in your daily life but rather a luxury a person needs to work for and earn. I don't really feel guilty but p2p has become an epidemic where every moron with a pc thinks they have a right to copyrighted entertainment. Sharing media was great in the dark days but now every kiddo thinks they have a soapbox to stand on when really they should be wearing a dunce hat and sitting in the corner. We are the bad guys. The bandits. The ones who operate on the other side of the law. The ones who cheat or exploit others. Don't ever forget that. Thats what made file sharing so cool. Now its just a bunch of idiots with a cause. So sad.

[eivioolla]

To a point youre right, BUT ---

Information is another term being used very loosely. If you were sharing some kind of knowledge or something people needed to know, I'm all for it and see nothing wrong with it. What is being shared on p2p is entertainment. Thats not a thing you need to get by in your daily life but rather a luxury a person needs to work for and earn.

Unfortunately the IP laws make absolutely no distinction between entertainment and other type of information. All the material used for education and such, is indeed copyrighted. The more the media cartels have power to control information, the more we will be headed to a direction where only the rich have access to it.

I also do not see culture as "luxury", but a rather fundamental part of what we are. Humans are not robots, a working society needs more than just the bare minimum to stay alive.


I don't really feel guilty but p2p has become an epidemic where every moron with a pc thinks they have a right to copyrighted entertainment. Sharing media was great in the dark days but now every kiddo thinks they have a soapbox to stand on when really they should be wearing a dunce hat and sitting in the corner. We are the bad guys. The bandits. The ones who operate on the other side of the law. The ones who cheat or exploit others. Don't ever forget that. Thats what made file sharing so cool. Now its just a bunch of idiots with a cause. So sad.

Well sorry but I whole heartedly disagree. There is nothing wrong in not following unjust laws. Law does not define right and wrong. Copyright holders are only cheating themselves, if they think that they can first release information to the public yet still maintain full control over it afterwards.

[Mels_Smileys45]

I also do not see culture as "luxury", but a rather fundamental part of what we are. Humans are not robots, a working society needs more than just the bare minimum to stay alive.



rwards.

For the most part I just can't agree with what you are saying and thats fine. To each his own. One thing though, you don't need P2P to stay alive or be happy. If you do, something is really wrong. Culture is part of what we are by definition but I don't see how P2P is enriching culture in any way. It may make your life style a bit more pleasant and maybe someone elses a bit less so. (I know, you really don't care about anyone else) Not everyone can afford to sit on their ass and watch TV or surf all day and night. Some get lucky and fall in a pile of money and others have to work all their living days, like me. I work 60+ hours a week. Thats just life and I don't expect anyone elses work for free as a right. The laws that are in place are meant to protect the rights of entertainers and by stepping on them we are saying we are better than they are.

Thomas Jefferon once said: "The democracy will cease to exist when you take away from those who are willing to work and give to those who would not."

Work for what you want in life and never expect a free hand out for anything. Take it if its there, but when people start expecting things for free, thats when people become lazy and unambitious. If you want our culture to be a bunch of people void of achievement and success, then youre on the right track.

[eivioolla]

One thing though, you don't need P2P to stay alive or be happy. If you do, something is really wrong.

I meant that one needs more than the bare minimum that keeps one alive to become a productive member of the society.

I think that you also fail to see the big picture, it's not just about downloading Eminem or latest Hollywood crap. P2P is an efficient way to fight back the ever increasing corporate control and government censorship.


Culture is part of what we are by definition but I don't see how P2P is enriching culture in any way.

In that case I'm afraid I must conclude that you're blind. Culture feeds itself. Nothing will be born out of vacuum. If we have access to nothing, then most likely nothing will be created either as there is nothing to take influences of. P2P has opened a door to a whole new world of culture. I have personally found so many interesting things that before I had never even heard of.


It may make your life style a bit more pleasant and maybe someone elses a bit less so.

Not just mine, but nearly everyone's and not just a bit if you look at the big picture beyond just P2P and entertainment.


Not everyone can afford to sit on their ass and watch TV or surf all day and night. Some get lucky and fall in a pile of money and others have to work all their living days, like me. I work 60+ hours a week.

Poor you. No wonder you're so bitter, having to work and all... :|


The laws that are in place are meant to protect the rights of entertainers

Were, were meant. However nowadays what is protected is the corporation cartels that hoard those rights using their monopoly position.


Work for what you want in life and never expect a free hand out for anything.

No one is expecting anything. However I do promote things that I believe will lead us into a better direction.

[Mels_Smileys45]

I'm not bitter at all. I'm happy to be working. I've been down and out and back again. I just have no problem being real and not deluding myself with bull to justify myself or greed.


I think that you also fail to see the big picture, it's not just about downloading Eminem or latest Hollywood crap. P2P is an efficient way to fight back the ever increasing corporate control and government censorship.

Thats pretty funny. P2P fights none of these things effectivly. Corporate controll over things that truely matter like medicine, utilities and such will never be gained by free downloads. An industry should be able to control their product any way they see fit as long as its not a life essetial product Government censorship? Of what exactly? I don't see how P2P helps this any more effectivly than the net does already. I guess the big picture is drawn in crayon by an a blind quadriplegic.

[Mels_Smileys45]

I guess the big picture is drawn in crayon by an a blind quadriplegic.

Do you know where I can download this pic? I would like to print it out and frame it.

[eivioolla]

Thats pretty funny. P2P fights none of these things effectivly. Corporate controll over things that truely matter like medicine, utilities and such will never be gained by free downloads. An industry should be able to control their product any way they see fit as long as its not a life essetial product Government censorship? Of what exactly? I don't see how P2P helps this any more effectivly than the net does already. I guess the big picture is drawn in crayon by an a blind quadriplegic.

You can't be serious. What truly matters is knowledge, information. Why else would these corporations fight so desperately to control it? Utilities can be build, but only if you know how.

The net, if you are referring to web, is unfortunately very easy to control because of it's centralized and easily traceable nature. If you don't believe me, visit China and see for yourself.

Just recently I read news that the Finnish ISPs have been pressured to start blocking access to certain sites "voluntarily". The list of blocked sites will not be made public.

Also not so long ago Finnish security police "negotiated" with an admin of a Chechen site that was hosted in Finland and soon after the site disappeared. I guess our eastern neighbour wasn't too happy about the site.

Then there was the FBI raid of the indymedia servers under questionable circumstances.

I'm sure you could continue the list endelessly.

P2P changes all this. Decentralized, self-proxying networks, darknets, will be much harder, perhaps impossible to censor by the authorities.

Just because your own actions are dicated purely by greed, doesn't mean everyone else's is too.

[.:sp00ky:.]

I think that you also fail to see the big picture, it's not just about downloading Eminem or latest Hollywood crap. P2P is an efficient way to fight back the ever increasing corporate control and government censorship..


oh come on wake the fuck up you think 90% on p2p users give a shit about any of that,alot of p2p users are kids look at whos getting caught 12/14 yearold kids you really think that some 12yearold girl wakes up and thinks im gonna do some p2p'ing today because its "an efficient way to fight back the ever increasing corporate control and government censorship"

lmao!

they p2p cos they want shit for free greed takes over and you start to want everything for free becasue its their to be taken.

stop pretending your somesort of cool super hero out to save the world from "evil"

[.:sp00ky:.]

You can't be serious. What truly matters is knowledge, information.


You can't be serious! what "knowledge" and information" do you get from watching "Fantastic.4.2005.DVDSCR.PAL.DVDR-DFG"

[eivioolla]

oh come on wake the fuck up you think 90% on p2p users give a shit about any of that,alot of p2p users are kids look at whos getting caught 12/14 yearold kids you really think that some 12yearold girl wakes up and thinks im gonna do some p2p'ing today because its "an efficient way to fight back the ever increasing corporate control and government censorship"

lmao!

they p2p cos they want shit for free greed takes over and you start to want everything for free becasue its their to be taken.

stop pretending your somesort of cool super hero out to save the world from "evil"

I think that the remaining 10% easily justifies defending P2P.

[AussieMatt]

I think a collective licencing deal could be a great leveler and would distrupt the current distribution channels the RIAA and the media Industry in general control

.If a content creator chosses to go the independant route they could also join a rights collecting agency and be some of the most popular content downloaded .In a collective model The contnet industry become marketing contractors to the content creators they no longer really controll the distribution channels .One reason the industry has resisted a collective model when they where proposed by the likes of Napster and Kazza back in 2001 .

If your content is downloaded and is more popular then industry sanctioned content you recive a bigger percentage of the collective money pool.I for one welcome a Voluntary Collective Licencing scheme and agree that they need a very acurate auditng system so the download statistics cannot be skewed in favor of the industry but by actual download figures .

[eivioolla]

You can't be serious! what "knowledge" and information" do you get from watching "Fantastic.4.2005.DVDSCR.PAL.DVDR-DFG"

I wouldn't know because I don't think I'm going to watch that. I did get some knowledge though from the books about windows programming I downloaded as well as from the document about string theory.

[Mels_Smileys45]

Read a book and lay off the drugs.


The main people trying to control anything on P2P is the RIAA and MPAA to protect their investments. End of story. I don't hear any stories of the government arresting people for sharing some kind of knowledge on P2P that would enlighten people in any way shape or form. Yeah P2P will save the world. Give it a break. China has ALOT more troubles than the internet or P2P for gods sake.

[eivioolla]

The main people trying to control anything on P2P is the RIAA and MPAA to protect their investments. End of story. I don't hear any stories of the government arresting people for sharing some kind of knowledge on P2P that would enlighten people in any way shape or form. Yeah P2P will save the world. Give it a break. China has ALOT more troubles than the internet or P2P for gods sake.

Just recently there was a news piece that the Chinese government has hired agents to spread government propaganda on discussion forums and to direct the discussion into the "right" direction. Seems like the Chinese govermnet sees it as an issue, even if you wouldn't. Now perhaps you should go educate yourself a bit before you continue to underline your ignorance any further.

[.:sp00ky:.]

I wouldn't know because I don't think I'm going to watch that. I did get some knowledge though from the books about windows programming I downloaded as well as from the document about string theory.


and you really think that the mpaa/riaa are going to sue you for downloading windows for dummies and a document about string?

you just ended your own argument you have nothing to fear about getting sued if all you really use p2p is stuff like that i agree p2p is great for sharing real information but theirs a differance between that and 2000 mp3s of riaa pop music.

[eivioolla]

and you really think that the mpaa/riaa are going to sue you for downloading windows for dummies and a document about string?

you just ended your own argument you have nothing to fear about getting sued if all you really use p2p is stuff like that i agree p2p is great for sharing real information but theirs a differance between that and 2000 mp3s of riaa pop music.

Au contraire my friend, Microsoft is known to look after it's rights rather vigorously and them suing someone for making MS Press works publicly available is not far fetched at all in my opinion.

Besides, that is not the point. If P2P is banned the ability to acquire above mentioned works will be greatly reduced whether or not they in particular were an issue at any point.

[.:sp00ky:.]

sorry for a second i thought you ment you download somet that someone and wrote themselfs and choosen to share not a copyrighted book.

you will always be able to share information we can share info right here not everything has to be taken from someone elses work.

[moneoa]

You can't be serious! what "knowledge" and information" do you get from watching "Fantastic.4.2005.DVDSCR.PAL.DVDR-DFG"
LMAO

10 chars

[Ne007]

I meant that one needs more than the bare minimum that keeps one alive to become a productive member of the society.

I think that you also fail to see the big picture, it's not just about downloading Eminem or latest Hollywood crap. P2P is an efficient way to fight back the ever increasing corporate control and government censorship.



In that case I'm afraid I must conclude that you're blind. Culture feeds itself. Nothing will be born out of vacuum. If we have access to nothing, then most likely nothing will be created either as there is nothing to take influences of. P2P has opened a door to a whole new world of culture. I have personally found so many interesting things that before I had never even heard of.



Not just mine, but nearly everyone's and not just a bit if you look at the big picture beyond just P2P and entertainment.



Poor you. No wonder you're so bitter, having to work and all... :|



Were, were meant. However nowadays what is protected is the corporation cartels that hoard those rights using their monopoly position.



No one is expecting anything. However I do promote things that I believe will lead us into a better direction.


Man...I'm sorry. I read your earlier post and assumed that you were calling P2P users "greedy bastards". I left you negative feedback only to read on to see that you had valid statements and arguments. I will give you positive rep once it lets me. Sorry.

[moneoa]

eivioolla, you are romanticising your own theft to make yourself feel better.
You talk about people being ignorant?

you are the one who tactfully points out you are above the majority because YOU only download ebooks and educational software guides, I am happy to see you are sooooo enlightened

Oppertunity,
we are oppertunists and we have been given the oppertunity to have key items that we would not normally afford or buy.

Censorship has nothing to do with it though on the road we are on, control of information and knowledge will become the norm in the years down the road. This will be when people are trying to see throught the neatly packaged propoganda, when the realisation hits the masses then you will see this.

In the present though I would go farther than 90 percent, I would boldly say 99.9 percent of people who use P2P do so for the explicit purpose of appropriating copyrighted content.

By that I mean movies, music and games.

Senario.

I downloaded a documentary one day, it's for sale at wal mart for 20 bucks.
The movie house is represented by the MPAA.

They catch my IP in the download list on BT uploading the item in question to others.
I get a supeona in the mail. They sue me because I stole the film online and I get a hefty fee.

It makes the news because it was an educational documentary on lets say the vietnam war.

So my response is "I think that you also fail to see the big picture, it's not just about downloading Eminem or latest Hollywood crap. P2P is an efficient way to fight back the ever increasing corporate control and government censorship..it was to expand my mind man"

I get laughed out as the law IS the law.

I stole that Documentary.

Picture:
I walk into a Chapters Bookstore, go to the DVD section and see a really good Documentary but it is 20 bucks and I cannot afford it. I take the DVD and get caught by a floor walker,

I get arrested, charged and get a shitty mark on my permanent record.

I look at the judge and say ""I think that you also fail to see the big picture, it's not just about appropriating Eminem or latest Hollywood crap. Stealing is an efficient way to fight back the ever increasing corporate control and government censorship..it was to expand my mind man"

Imagine the look he would give me.
You know how fucking stupid that sounds? You stole it!

The difference between P2P and stealing from the store?
Not a goddamn thing and to try and paint it otherwise is nothing but self justified bullshit.

WAIT there is one thing different, in the store I can get caught more readily.
usually means a mark on the criminal record. Online it's "almost" transparent.
We can point and click, its so easy and because we are not hiding it under our jacket we feel better about our personal morals.

I think its real noble you download manuals and in depth guides on MS and software.
Lord knows you arent shafting some IT prig who spent alot of time making the guide you so casually steal.

Tell you what, when you are downloading anatomy text books and dissrotations on nuclear energy, Architecture and engineering. come back and THEN you can at least put fourth an honest opinion of your own actions.

THEN can you come around and lecture and act like you are on the moral high road.

A kettle calling a kettle black does nothing for the color of the kettle in question.

Enough analogies.....Im done my rant

[.:sp00ky:.]

Nicely put moneoa.

[ejonesss]

great idea !!!! i think isps should pay so long as it is like some universities do and like isps do for the newsgroups.

basically contract with someone like apple where the end users do not pay a cent and the isp foots the bills.

[method]

Should public transport operators pay for all losses attributed to shoplifting by those who've travelled using their services??

...just because it was the mode of transport for the theif and the stolen goods?

[que-em]

Forget that. I want some welfare too, that doesn't mean I'm gonna get it. Let them work for their money instead of being leeches. The only way this crap would work is by government enforcement and seeing as how the government views the people vs. business this could be forced on the ISPs just to stick it up our asses. Even if they get a "tax" they still won't be satified. Once they get this DRM locked down in DVDs CDs and the OS you'll be getting so raped by the industry you won't give a damn about the artist anymore. At that point they can do anything they want with the music and movie you have purchased.

What is it about the current times that make people trust Big Business?????????? If I could get away with the raping they get away I'd probably do it too so I know damn well not to trust them. Greedy people don't stop being greedy.

[Signa]

in responce to the argument here is that i agree that we are stealing, but i dont think that we are the bad guys. the MPAA/RIAA is like a big man dangling candy in front of us but telling us that we have pay $20 for a lolipop. what do we do? we wait till his back is turned, and grab it and share it with our friends. sure its not the *right* thing to do, but does it make us the "bad guys?"

Greed:
sure we are greedy. we dont need the lolipop, but you can call ANY self serving act "greed." it just matters where you draw the line. is it being greedy taking a flower from a park to set it in your kitchen, or is it greedy to ask $20 for somthing that costs $.20. the true answer is yes to both. personally. when i get a new "lolipop" i try very hard to make sure that everyone who wants it can have it. i have to admit, i am greedy, but i also am greedy to give. i love the feeling it gives me and it becomes definable as a selfish act. thats why there is a line for where you draw greed. of the above examples fall within the line of greed? most surely the big man with the expensive candy is across the line. the kids? that depends. did the friends of the theif go and share their candy with others? or did the gobble it down themselves. its A LOT easier to swollow the sin of greed if its forgiven by an act of selflessness.

Moneoa:

The difference between P2P and stealing from the store?
Not a goddamn thing and to try and paint it otherwise is nothing but self justified bullshit.
i whole heartedly disagree with this. the real diference is that a retail store has to make up for lost inventory. a retail store doesnt deserve being a victim. a retail store is just some of the other kids getting organized to make the $20 a lolipop fee. you arent being robin hood when you steal from a store: you are being as bad as the man with the $20 lolipops.

filesharing has its own odd set of mixed morals that you cant process with the simple black and white reasoning of "they stole it" filesharing allows you to play robin hood, both greedy and altruistic. filesharing allows you to take control of a bad situation and make it better for as many people as you can.

[moneoa]

Moneoa:

the real diference is that a retail store has to make up for lost inventory. a retail store doesnt deserve being a victim. a retail store is just some of the other kids getting organized to make the $20 a lolipop fee. you arent being robin hood when you steal from a store: you are being as bad as the man with the $20 lolipops.

filesharing has its own odd set of mixed morals that you cant process with the simple black and white reasoning of "they stole it" filesharing allows you to play robin hood, both greedy and altruistic. filesharing allows you to take control of a bad situation and make it better for as many people as you can.
Romanticising......that difference is a pretty weak one.
why you think nobody is missing any inventory to recover when you download something is beyond me.

you think this is Robin Hood? P2P? that there is some upstanding cause for you to justify what you do?...fantasy, my friend, fantasy.........

I appreciate your opinion but it is not enough to convince me to retract or change mine.
Keep in mind I told myself much the same stuff as you when I first came into the scene.

[Signa]

Romanticising......that difference is a pretty weak one.
why you think nobody is missing any inventory to recover when you download something is beyond me.

i work retail. thats why i think there is a differnce. instead of hurting some one that deserves it, you are hurting the honest worker. actually, thats a pretty big diference.

you think this is Robin Hood? P2P? that there is some upstanding cause for you to justify what you do?...fantasy, my friend, fantasy.........

why not? robin hood was fighting the tynany of the king by sharing the kings wealth with the population. how is this differnt?


I appreciate your opinion but it is not enough to convince me to retract or change mine.
Keep in mind I told myself much the same stuff as you when I first came into the scene.

i wasnt really trying to change anyones opionon (maybe mels, as he is saying that we are strictly greedy and nothing else). in fact i thought that you had a great post. i just didnt agree with the part where you said there wasnt a difference between stealing and filesharing.

and thank you for being polite. too many people get caught up in flame wars on forums when some one else doesnt agree with them. down-right pisses me off seeing the kids bicker.

[eivioolla]

eivioolla, you are romanticising your own theft to make yourself feel better.

First of all, that wouldn't make me feel any better. Now, what would make me feel better would be to see the copyright-mafia struck down and the public rights regarding acquiring, using and sharing published information secured.

We, here in Finland, have had those public rights secured for at least the last 50 years, written down loud and clear in our copyright act. Now, if that will change in the future, because media cartels have bribed our decision makers, will right suddenly become wrong, just because the law is changed? No it won't, not in my eyes anyway.

Second, boy, you have really swallowed the cartels' propaganda to bring "theft" into this. I have looked into the laws of the US, UK and Finland, and I assure you, theft has absolutely nothing to do with anything we have discussed so far in any of these countries, and probably not in any other either.


you are the one who tactfully points out you are above the majority because YOU only download ebooks and educational software guides, I am happy to see you are sooooo enlightened

1. You missed the point completely. It was a stupid reply to a stupid argument.

2. Have I said I only download ebooks and educational material? No, no I have not. So why do you claim that I have? Because you know you have no argument without making things up.

Just to make things clear: I download tons and tons of entertainment. Hell, why wouldn't I, it's my legal right, written in the law.


we are oppertunists and we have been given the oppertunity to have key items that we would not normally afford or buy.

Of course we are, and that is the very reason you can't use it as an argument, but you must look beyond it and see what else is there to justify one thing over another.



Senario.

I downloaded a documentary one day, it's for sale at wal mart for 20 bucks.
The movie house is represented by the MPAA.

They catch my IP in the download list on BT uploading the item in question to others.
I get a supeona in the mail. They sue me because I stole the film online and I get a hefty fee.

It makes the news because it was an educational documentary on lets say the vietnam war.

So my response is "I think that you also fail to see the big picture, it's not just about downloading Eminem or latest Hollywood crap. P2P is an efficient way to fight back the ever increasing corporate control and government censorship..it was to expand my mind man"

I get laughed out as the law IS the law.

I stole that Documentary.

No friend, you didn't steal anything. You created a copy of something for your own private use. Now, if that is against the law in your country, then too bad. Court is court and it interprets the law as it is, what you quoted had absolutely nothing to do with that.


Picture:
I walk into a Chapters Bookstore, go to the DVD section and see a really good Documentary but it is 20 bucks and I cannot afford it. I take the DVD and get caught by a floor walker,

I get arrested, charged and get a shitty mark on my permanent record.

I look at the judge and say ""I think that you also fail to see the big picture, it's not just about appropriating Eminem or latest Hollywood crap. Stealing is an efficient way to fight back the ever increasing corporate control and government censorship..it was to expand my mind man"

Imagine the look he would give me.
You know how fucking stupid that sounds? You stole it!

Of course you stole it, but what on earth does that have to do with anything. You're loosing it.


The difference between P2P and stealing from the store?

Well, the former is defined a public right in the law, where as the latter is defined a criminal act.


Not a goddamn thing and to try and paint it otherwise is nothing but self justified bullshit.

O...K...


WAIT there is one thing different

Many things actually. For example, when you create a new instance, a copy, of something, no one loses anything. On the other hand if you steal something from the store, the store loses it. See?


Enough analogies

Well, no offence but your so called analogies are not really analogous.

Here's one for you. You are walking down the street and see a car. You go to your garage and build a new, nearly identical copy of that car that you saw on the street. Question: did you steal the car on the street?

[moneoa]

you didnt "build" anything
Making a physical copy by taking spare seperate parts and making it digitally are two different things.


No friend, you didn't steal anything. You created a copy of something for your own private use. Now, if that is against the law in your country, then too bad. Court is court and it interprets the law as it is, what you quoted had absolutely nothing to do with that.
but I did, if you went to the store and pulled it out of its wrapper and ripped the dvd right there it is still an act of theft. You did not pay for it therefore you don't have the right to make a copy for "Personal Use"

Fair rights laws (at least in canada) do specify you NEED to buy it at least ONCE to be able to use "personal copy" and "fair use" as a term.

Just downloading a bunch of shit on the premis that you by law have a right to personal use on everything published because you are only downloading it for you is very flawed and misguided.

again you pretty up the act to make it look nice.

If you are really saying Finland law allows for personal copies regardless of purchase then I want to move there because under that precedent any tom dick and Harry can walk in and make an exact digital copy of almost everything as long as it falls under personal use.

Nobody cares if you take spare parts and make a copy of your favourite car, with digital there were no spare parts as it was a direct mirror of the thing in question.

By your argument the whole monetary and trade system we have set up would collapse.

and no I am not buying any propoganda, I am as much an active person in this thing as we all are.

I just learned to be brutally honest about what I am really doing.


i work retail. thats why i think there is a differnce. instead of hurting some one that deserves it, you are hurting the honest worker. actually, thats a pretty big diference.

Ah yes but could it not be argued that the people who made the content are honest workers being hurt by the actions of P2P? Don't lump the people who made it with the corporation you dislike.

Everybody loses actually including us, we download and then to make up for the percived shortfalls they just charge us more.

why not? robin hood was fighting the tynany of the king by sharing the kings wealth with the population. how is this differnt?
Robin Hood was stealing gold that John taxed from the masses and giving it back because it fed the starving pesants and ensured their meager survival.

Thats not an appropriate parlallel.

If P2P suddenly vanished over night there would be no hardship like the hardship of being cut off from what gives you sustinance (if robin stopped people would starve and die).

[eivioolla]

By all means move to Finland. FYI, just recently the Higher Regional Court dismissed all charges agains the Finnish memebers of DrinkOrDie warez group, on the basis that the material was not distributed to the public but shared between the members in a private circle. Do take warm clothes because the winter is coming and it may get pretty cold up here. You can also get a 24Mbps connection for about $50 a month, I'm sure you will like it here.

[eivioolla]

Making a physical copy by taking spare seperate parts and making it digitally are two different things.

So why on earth did you start comparing them? Now that was one stupid move was it not? :P



but I did, if you went to the store and pulled it out of its wrapper and ripped the dvd right there it is still an act of theft. You did not pay for it therefore you don't have the right to make a copy for "Personal Use"

You are so off, that I must laugh a little. Hah.

Now, go on and actually read the law "Theft Act" look it up in Google. Nowhere does it mention anything about "paying". Paying is entirely irrelevant.


Fair rights laws (at least in canada) do specify you NEED to buy it at least ONCE to be able to use "personal copy" and "fair use" as a term.

Unless the laws in Canada have changed recently, file sharing is entirely legal there.

"Sharing copyrighted works on peer-to-peer networks is legal in Canada, a federal judge ruled on Wednesday, handing the record industry a sharp setback in its international fight against file swappers."

http://news.com.com/2100-1027_3-5182641.html


Just downloading a bunch of shit on the premeis that you by law have a right to personal use on everything published because you are only downloading it for you is very flawed and misguided.

Nope, I assure that is the correct interpretation of the law, at least here.


By your argument the whole monetary and trade system we have set up would collapse.

Funny, that our monetary system is just fine, regardless of having these laws in place for at least 50 years.


and no I am not buying any propoganda, I am as much an active person in this thing as we all are.

You are bying all the propaganda, not because of what you do, but because you think exactly the way they would have you thinking.


I just learned to be brutally honest about what I am really doing.

Hey, if you want to feel like a bad boy, criminal even, because of your file sharing habbits, that's fine by me. By all means. But don't come here and try to tell me what I think, because surely I know it much better than you do.

[moneoa]

So why on earth did you start comparing them? Now that was one stupid move was it not? :P[\quote] lol because it IS an accurate parallel
[quote=]Now, go on and actually read the law "Theft Act" look it up in Google. Nowhere does it mention anything about "paying". Paying is entirely irrelevant.
lol.....well I did get a good laugh from that I submit. to you on this...


Unless the laws in Canada have changed recently, file sharing is entirely legal there.

Misconception from many sides, the judge ruled downloading was legal but not uploading.
Like a copy machine in a lbrary he likened downloading.

uploading though is peddling and illegal (up here its still considered peddling stolen goods.

In canada it is only legal to be a leech.

Our DMCA is coming have no doubt so soon even this file paradise will dissapear.

Then our recording industry will play catch up with the RIAA.

[eivioolla]

lol because it IS an accurate parallel

Didn't you just say that physical and digital world can't be compared? Make up your mind already.


Misconception from many sides, the judge ruled downloading was legal but not uploading.
Like a copy machine in a lbrary he likened downloading.
uploading though is peddling and illegal (up here its still considered peddling stolen goods.
In canada it is only legal to be a leech.

Didn't you just claim that it would be required to own the title to have the right to make copies? You really seem confused.

I really don't see what is there to misconcept in the following statements by the judge:

"With respect to downloading, the judge accepted the Copyright Board's early decision almost without comment. But he went further, citing a recent Supreme Court decision to say that making music available online also appeared to be legal.

In that recent case, the Supreme Court ruled that libraries were not "authorizing" copyright infringement simply by putting photocopy machines near books. The libraries were justified in assuming that their customers were using the copiers in a legal manner, the high court ruled.

Finckenstein said the same rationale should apply to peer-to-peer users.

"The mere fact of placing a copy on a shared directory in a computer where that copy can be accessed via a P2P service does not amount to distribution," Finckenstein wrote. "Before it constitutes distribution, there must be a positive act by the owner of the shared directory, such as sending out the copies or advertising that they are available for copying." "

Seems pretty clear to me...


Our DMCA is coming have no doubt so soon even this file paradise will dissapear.
Then our recording industry will play catch up with the RIAA.

Too bad for you. It doesn't turn right into wrong though because that is not defined by law.

[The Hunter]

Even now they are more than likely keeping records of Canadian traffic for the next court presentation. I fully believe this will be in favour of big business, as they here also support the political party they feel will best serve their needs.
ISPs pay, well it wont be them but us that would be paying a fee to our providers for us downloading, and more importantly uploading files. I feel that is a good idea, and for those of us that wish to opt out of an additional fee for uploading, well so be it. Now whos on to take westward tack, and see what booty there is to plunder, as for now both wind and tide be favorable/

[SJ56]

"No friend, you didn't steal anything. You created a copy of something for your own private use. Now, if that is against the law in your country, then too bad. Court is court and it interprets the law as it is, what you quoted had absolutely nothing to do with that."

Not by sharing it to others.

Suppose you have done some works (music, video) and you want to sell in in stores;
but peoples say I wont buy it; I will just download it on p2p.

What would be your reaction?

[moneoa]

Didn't you just say that physical and digital world can't be compared? Make up your mind already.
It is comparable to the extent that it is an owned property protected by law, digital or physical.
because it does not physicaly exsist it does not mean it's not the same as physically taking a copy from the store.

Building a copy of a car is NOT considered the same as downloading electronic material
Using useless discarded parts to build a whole is not the same as making an entire copy of an electronic work and sharing it with others. Would you let millions drive your car?


Now, go on and actually read the law "Theft Act" look it up in Google. Nowhere does it mention anything about "paying". Paying is entirely irrelevant.
Right!!!!!

First hit:
http://www.lawteacher.net/Criminal/Property%20Offences/TA%201968.pdf

Note in section 2. subsection 2. "A person's appropriation of property belonging to another may be dishonest notwithstanding that he is willing to PAY for the property"

Seems pretty clear to me but it seems it might be to vauge for most to pick up.

All those sections apply to what you and me do, do you really think because the iso uploaded thousands of times was a physical product only once that it justifies all the other copies under fair use?

whatever you want to float your boat..

"In that recent case, the Supreme Court ruled that libraries were not "authorizing" copyright infringement simply by putting photocopy machines near books. The libraries were justified in assuming that their customers were using the copiers in a legal manner, the high court ruled."

By legal manner they mean taking a book and making a few pages for yourself and you alone assuming you have the right to do so. Not by standing by the copier and letting thousands knowingly download it.

Thats not covered under personal use.

Books in copyright also differ from electronics in copyright in regards to fair/personal use

By putting it in a shared folder you assume that the person has the legal right to do so under fair use
and for most forms of electronic data fair use is defined as having purchased the item and having the right to make a backup for yourself personally.

Not that one person buying it entitles millions of others to a free copy, none of them paid for the right to be covered under fair use.

Jesus and you call me confused :icon_tong

Finland truly is a wonderous land.

Apparenly there you can take anything to your hearts content as long as its for personal use.

Tape a video of you walking into a dvd store with your laptop and rip a copy of a dvd right in fronf the employees put back the physical copy and walk out.

When they stop you and you talk to the cops tell them what you told me, after all its for "personal" use
You can put it in your shared folder

[Signa]

Ah yes but could it not be argued that the people who made the content are honest workers being hurt by the actions of P2P? Don't lump the people who made it with the corporation you dislike.

yes, you can argue it, but you would be wrong. they stoped being honest when they started forcing lawmakers to side with them and took it too far when they started sueing people. sure, maybe im just being prejudice, but i would like you to tell me with a straight face that the MPAA/RIAA are honest business men.


Robin Hood was stealing gold that John taxed from the masses and giving it back because it fed the starving pesants and ensured their meager survival.

Thats not an appropriate parlallel.

If P2P suddenly vanished over night there would be no hardship like the hardship of being cut off from what gives you sustinance (if robin stopped people would starve and die).

how is the taxed gold different than the exorberant prices of CDs and DVDs? and if all forms of piracy died overnight, no, no one else would die with it. but the thing is if that does happen, then the AAs have won, and thats a pretty bad thing. just as king john would have won if robin hood was captured.

regardless, how it ends doesnt really matter in the point of the argument. the point is that like robinhood, we are fighting tyany, and opression with filesharing. i agree it doesnt make much sence, nor does it sound logical when stated like so. but think about it. would simple boycotting work? ceritanly not. this IS working. this IS pissing them off and they are running around like chickens with their heads' cut off trying to figure out how to fix the problem. in the end, whatever you paint it: theft, freedom fighting, or greedless sharing of your duplicatable wealth, you still are getting what you want, while the corperations arent.

AND ISPs SHOULD NOT BE CHARGED BECAUSE NO ONE WILL HAVE ENOUGH FUCKING SENCE TO PUT A CAP ON THE CHARGES.

thank you.

[zpman]

That's completely absurd! How does your Internet access/gateway service have anything to do with what you download? All they are responsible for is to provide (hence the name ISP) Internet service. Has anyone actually considered just paying for mp3s? Like a subscription to Napster or something? Why burden those who don't download mp3s like say, your grandma?

As for myself, some p2p services are wonderful for me because it allows me to share mixes that I have created as well as others' creations. But I do not condone illegal activity. I do support Creative Commons licensed work through p2p networks such as Gnutella, Bittorrent, and so forth.
It seems to me that way too many people whine and bitch because it is getting harder for them to steal files illegally. I've got a solution: Pay for them.

This whole concept is just another ridiculous attempt to tax people, and it gives the government a reason to do it. As I said, it's absurd. Any isp that charges extra, just on the basis of providing that 'extra' money to artists will be forever boycotted by me. And who says which artists are going to be paid? If someone downloads a mix by me, do you think I will be paid? This is a scam.

I've got a better idea! How about limiting those taxes by operating system, rather than isp. Let's say you run Windows XP, or something: you will be taxed; nuff said! Looks like I'm in the clear (Mac and GNU/Linux users---over here).

[zpman]

BTW, I've used the internet for a long time, and downloading files is nothing new to me. It seems to me, rather unfortunate, that those who have abused this are ruining it for everybody else. I've downloaded mp3s and what not, but not thousands and thousands, because I have better things to do with my time. I frankly don't have time to listen to that much and besides, there isn't THAT much good stuff out there. Why fill your capacity with a bunch of useless crap, then blame 'the man' when you get busted? Seems pointless to me, and frakly, a bit childish. Not pointing fingers at anyone specifically, but common sense ought to tell you when you've crossed the line.

[zpman]

One more thing, how does this 'idea' shift the cost from users to ISPs? Don't you still have to pay your ISP and won't that in the long run just increase the cost for access? If someone could give me an intelligent argument here, I would love to hear it.

[eivioolla]

It is comparable to the extent that it is an owned property protected by law, digital or physical.

It's not comparable, that is precicely the reason why there are entirely different laws for material and immaterial rights. If they were the same, there would be no need for two set of laws.


because it does not physicaly exsist it does not mean it's not the same as physically taking a copy from the store.

Sure it does.


Building a copy of a car is NOT considered the same as downloading electronic material

YOU don't consider it the same, because it doesn't suit your argument. I however think that it is a very accurate analogy.


Would you let millions drive your car?

Don't you see, that is not an analogy. If someone is using my car, I can't use it. My car also wears when it's used. Now if you want an analogy, then sure, anyone can freely create a new copy of my car, and use the copy any way they please, as long as my own copy remains at my use the entire time and does not wear down in the process.


First hit:
http://www.lawteacher.net/Criminal/Property%20Offences/TA%201968.pdf

Note in section 2. subsection 2. "A person's appropriation of property belonging to another may be dishonest notwithstanding that he is willing to PAY for the property"

Seems pretty clear to me but it seems it might be to vauge for most to pick up.

Congratulations, you found the word "pay" in there. Let's pay no mind to the fact that it is actually saying that paying is irrelevant.


All those sections apply to what you and me do

Actually none of those apply.

"(1) A person is guilty of theft if he dishonestly appropriates property belonging to another with the intention of permanently depriving the other of it; and `theft' and `steal' shall be construed accordingly."

Now, considering that creating a new instance, a copy, of something, does NOT deprive the owner of his property, as his property remains under his control, the theft act does not apply.

This is not hard to conclude, as no one has ever been tried for theft in court because of file sharing.

Instread, they are tried for copyright infringement, which is completely different matter altogether.

It's important to notice that for theft it is required that there is an intention to permanently deprive the owner of his property. I don't know how it is in the US/Canada but here if you for example take someone's car without permission, but you only take it for a joyride, without the intention to take it permanently, even that is NOT theft. It's something called "illicit use" (not sure about the translation), which is much smaller crime than theft.

Now, if not even that is theft, then how could creating a copy of sth. be? The answer is, it can't and it isn't.


do you really think because the iso uploaded thousands of times was a physical product only once that it justifies all the other copies under fair use?

We don't have "fair use". To be honest I don't know what exactly that is.


"In that recent case, the Supreme Court ruled that libraries were not "authorizing" copyright infringement simply by putting photocopy machines near books. The libraries were justified in assuming that their customers were using the copiers in a legal manner, the high court ruled."


By legal manner they mean taking a book and making a few pages for yourself and you alone assuming you have the right to do so.

According to what? What is "a few pages"?


Books in copyright also differ from electronics in copyright in regards to fair/personal use

Where? Canada? How do they differ?


for most forms of electronic data fair use is defined as having purchased the item

Any source, or is that your opinion only?

"However, the country's copyright law does allow making a copy for personal use and does not address the source of that copy or whether the original has to be an authorized or noninfringing version, the board said."

http://news.com.com/Canada+deems+P2P+downloading+legal/2100-1025_3-5121479.html?tag=nl


Finland truly is a wonderous land.
Apparenly there you can take anything to your hearts content as long as its for personal use.

No you can't "take" anything. What you can is you can create a copy of disseminated works for private use. You are right that Finland is wonderous land, it's great to live in a country that still has wide public rights and freedoms.


Tape a video of you walking into a dvd store with your laptop and rip a copy of a dvd right in fronf the employees put back the physical copy and walk out.

Let's not be silly now. Obviously the DVD is property of the store and they can decide what can or can't be done with it. Since they want to maximize their sales, they would not allow that.

However, if you go to the library and do that, no one can stop you. That is your legal right.

[.:sp00ky:.]

Let's not be silly now. Obviously the DVD is property of the store and they can decide what can or can't be done with it. Since they want to maximize their sales, they would not allow that..


change store for the name of the company that made the dvd and thats a pretty good agrument agaist your own veiws.

[eivioolla]

change store for the name of the company that made the dvd and thats a pretty good agrument agaist your own veiws.

Nope, the manufacturer of the item is irrelevant. Besides, my view is not important, these matters have been verified in numerous court cases, there is absolutely nothing unclear here.

[Digital Bliss]

No one should music is a form of art and art should be free.

[shawners]

Even if IP's charge you more to pay for the cost of music. RIAA is still going to sue you and your still going to be doing it illegally. It doesnt matter if IP's pay the record company, the RIAA will not tolerate music downloads.

[.:sp00ky:.]

I did'nt mean the manufacturer i mean the people who worked their asses of you make the film who put time and effort into it do you think their irrelevant too?

[eivioolla]

I did'nt mean the manufacturer i mean the people who worked their asses of you make the film who put time and effort into it do you think their irrelevant too?

In this case yes. The DVD has already been sold the the retail store and the previous owners have thus already been compensated for it. At this point it is the property of the store and previous owners should no longer have any claim for it, in my opinion. Once it's sold, it's sold. You can't sell a car to someone and afterwards start to dictate what he should or should not do with it.

[AussieMatt]

When you buy Intelectual Property you are buying a licence to play the content . Thats How the IP works unfortunatly .The CD,DVD or any other format is just a medium so you can transfer the content to your device

[eivioolla]

When you buy Intelectual Property you are buying a licence to play the content . Thats How the IP works unfortunatly .The CD,DVD or any other format is just a medium so you can transfer the content to your device

That is true and it is very unfortunate that the cartels have been able to lobby such laws trough.

[moneoa]

good thread.....

Many healthy individual minds and perspectives :icon_thum

[Comax]

Ha!
Will I see any of that money for people downloading my songs?
Dont think so.
Big Business gets their cut.
Indie artists suffer.

[.:sp00ky:.]

But thats the point iv tryed to make so many times no one is forcing anyone to listen to riaa music no ones forcing you to download their crap,i see people "fight the riaa help indies by downloading and not payin or riaa music!!!11"
wtf! wanna help indie bands why not go buy some of their cds or go see some local pub bands post bands around where i live rip their own cds record their own music and play at local pubs and sell their cds for like a fiver thats how you suport indie bands.

but it wont happend most p2p users are happy listing to utter shit like eminem you like the shite riaa spews out you like their crappy films and you like their crappy music and thats why you download it.

[Signa]

In this case yes. The DVD has already been sold the the retail store and the previous owners have thus already been compensated for it. At this point it is the property of the store and previous owners should no longer have any claim for it, in my opinion. Once it's sold, it's sold. You can't sell a car to someone and afterwards start to dictate what he should or should not do with it.


this statment made me think. what if everyone got their stuff from honest used sales. once you are done with your DVD, you sell it to your friend or neighbor. not that this is as efficant as P2P, but the effect is the same on the MPAA/RIAA. and i bet you anything that they would try to make laws saying its illeagl to sell used merchandise.

[AussieMatt]

1st sale doctrine protects the used CDs.DVDs sellers and the licence on the content has has been paid for on the 1st sale of the content .

http://www.bc.edu/schools/law/lawreviews/meta-elements/journals/bclawr/44_2/09_TXT.htm

[zpman]

Where's my post? Who deleted it and why? This displeases me. Funny. I laugh..lol. Truth hurts sometimes, doesn't it? I don't want to start a debate here, but I hope the children didn't get any ideas about legally downloading mp3s. We wouldn't want that.

[zpman]

edit: my bad. I see it now. after seven refreshes, the other pages are loading. your fualt or mine, who knows, who cares. So please disregard my sarcasm.

[the great one]

this statment made me think. what if everyone got their stuff from honest used sales. once you are done with your DVD, you sell it to your friend or neighbor. not that this is as efficant as P2P, but the effect is the same on the MPAA/RIAA. and i bet you anything that they would try to make laws saying its illeagl to sell used merchandise.

When I used to buy CD's, I only bought them used.I didn't do it to make a statement against the RIAA or it's Canadian counterpart though,I did it because they were a lot cheaper that way.

In retrospect, I'm glad I did.

[zachary1]

Actually great one that scheme has been suspended in Canada and they are trying to find ways of refunding this money back to the consumers. It was too much red tape, and precious little of the fund went to the "artists" (read: blood-sucking record companies)

[transduction]

Paying 5 bucks a month won't shut these people up. They are to greedy for that. If a stipulation is that up that forces them to only except 5 bucks per customer per month, and never higher, that may work out well. But this companies are so greed y that it is hard to believe this will be a probable scenario.

transduction