Justifying P2Ping

[kari14]

Two weeks ago, I burned a CD for my boyfriend. He didn't ask for it - I only made it for him as a kind gesture. To be surprise, he gave the CD right back to me. " I can't accept this," he said.

Now I should have seen it coming seeing that his a typical just-out-of the-military, conservative Republican type of guy.

However, the fact of the matter is that:
1. is head over heels in love with me
2. approves of almost everything I do
3. does not have the guts to reject anything I give him

But apparently he felt pretty strongly about protecting copy right laws that he had the audacity to give back a gift his girlfriend had made for him staying up to 3 in the morning right before a big final exam.

So then I got into a big argument with him. This isn't about morality - it's about etiquette. However, I am a pretty rational person and like to prove myself right through intelligent conversation, not emotional hissy fit.

Does anyone have the greatest argument ever for justifying P2p?

[Feather]

There has been numerous discussions on this subject. I will see if I can find one of them.

here is one of the better ones.

http://www.zeropaid.com/bbs/showthread.php?t=45821

that will get you started and I am sure that you will get a decent group in here to argue the finer points

[mountain_rage]

Well an obvious example of how filesharing has helped artist is the Artic Monkeys, they would never be as popular as they are today if it wasn't for file sharing. As for the morality of filesharing I think its perfectly moral. Studies have shown that the decline in revenue due to filesharing is statistically insignificant, and most of those studies have also found that it helps smaller bands. It is my opinion that the whole debate revolves around the big 4 labels trying to retain their monopoly of the industry by artificially making their presence as a distributer essential to an artist. The interesting thing about copyright is that its an artificial market. Without the laws, the material would be free game for any individual. Thats how it used to be, you could take any act and make it your own, hell even Shakespear has been said to have copied parts of his play from others. Sadly rather then serving its original purpose of compensating the creator and fostering creativity, copyright has now become a hindrance on creativity and given control to only the bigger players in the industry. This in my opinion is all due to the fact that big corporations have had their hand in the molding of copyright laws in their favor. So defying an illogical, unsupported law makes sense, I will not allow a corporation to dictate their power. The general populous should have never been dragged into copyright debates as they don't have the time, money or even a reason to know all the laws surrounding it. Copyright laws should have only been applied to commercial situations where people are expected to know everything in their field.

[Feather]

seee I told you there would be people to argue the finer points

[El Comandante]

Does anyone have the greatest argument ever for justifying P2p?

No. But if you can convince him to shove a piece of coal up his ass you may get a pretty good size diamond. :icon_thum

[Feather]

Not helping

Funny

but not helping

[Signa]

No. But if you can convince him to shove a piece of coal up his ass you may get a pretty good size diamond. :icon_thum

DAMN our smilies suck. i wanted a dropped-mouth, wide-eyed smiley, but I guess these words will have to do. just awesome.


anyway, back on topic: I don't think it's a moral thing to do, nor is it immoral. It's in that grayspace that makes some things so hard to define. It really comes down to how you conduct yourself. For me, I love to share. I recently made 2 torrents of rare movies that can not be found in retail. I love p2p because I can get stuff that I can't buy or should not have to buy. I don't think I'm evil for it. Hell, I got an R4 for my NDS right after I quit my job, and now that I have a job again, I'm looking to buy the games that I beat on my time off just because that's how I roll.

I do know of people who are not very concerned about the "community" and more concerned about themselves. My brother falls into this category. He just free-loads and downloads whatever he wants without any thought to how much the media is worth to him. Right now, he is borrowing my Company of Heroes disk because its one of his favorite games. I don't need the disk as I have legitimately installed, and don't mind sharing it. He was recently unemployed as well, and even though he has a job now too, he isn't even thinking about getting his own. I can't really call him immoral, but I just don't see how his behavior constitutes a "good" rating.

In the end, I just don't see how you can not justify sharing things you like with other people. By making myself happy, I'm also making others happy. There isn't anything wrong with that. Therefore, that is my justification of file sharing.

[HelenaP]

DAMN our smilies suck. i wanted a dropped-mouth, wide-eyed smiley, but I guess these words will have to do. just awesome.


....


http://i95.photobucket.com/albums/l153/shell63/shokvk1.gif

[Signa]

http://i95.photobucket.com/albums/l153/shell63/shokvk1.gif

I still havnt paid to be a member, but ive been heavily lurking in the Something Awful forums. the emotes they have there are fucking awesome. There's the "monocle pop" where the smiley's monocle pops off in astonishment. I really wanted to use that one.

seriously! how the fuck are you supposed to use these?





:@: :shy (shy? WTF):icon_chee :icon_fara :icon_cher

Every single one makes no sense in terms of helping convey your message. oh yeah. im the shy pharaoh of filesharing with cheese holes in me.

sorry, that was a massive derail, but we ended up on something else I could rant on.

[Feather]

http://www.clipartof.com/images/emoticons/thumbnail2/469_jaw_dropping.gif

[Excrement_Cranium]

Justification is for corporate thieves and slave owners.

If you need to justify your actions, you are no better.

Would any of his "justifications" or buying hookers while he was deployed change your mind about kicking him in the balls?

Nope.


Because justification is a jargonization of excuse.

[notbob]

i say dump the jarhead and find yourself a better boyfriend

if he's going to make a big deal about something so insignificant, imagine how many other idiotic moralistic quirks he has. ultimately, relationships are about compromise. if he is unwilling to just take the cd and say thanks and be polite, things look bad on the horizon

i worked with a teacher who believed burned cds were wrong. since i had to work with her every day, i just let it go. it's not worth fighting about. i could think of a thousand reasons why burned cds aren't wrong, but it's irrelevant. you won't convince someone like that, regardless of evidence. they are taking a black and white moralistic stance based on belief, and no amount of evidence will sway a brainwashed zombie like that

i say run. far far away

[Signa]

i say dump the jarhead and find yourself a better boyfriend

if he's going to make a big deal about something so insignificant, imagine how many other idiotic moralistic quirks he has. ultimately, relationships are about compromise. if he is unwilling to just take the cd and say thanks and be polite, things look bad on the horizon

i worked with a teacher who believed burned cds were wrong. since i had to work with her every day, i just let it go. it's not worth fighting about. i could think of a thousand reasons why burned cds aren't wrong, but it's irrelevant. you won't convince someone like that, regardless of evidence. they are taking a black and white moralistic stance based on belief, and no amount of evidence will sway a brainwashed zombie like that

i say run. far far away

This.

as awful as it might come across as "im dumping you because you dont like filesharing," Notbob is absolutely right. This attitude is only the surface. if he isnt willing to compromise his beliefs for getting some free stuff graciously handed to him, imagine what its going to be like when he feels like you owe him something. Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying to dump him now: I don't think anyone is saying that, but just know that things may be getting rocky in the future, and if you are going to stay together, you are going to have your work cut out for you. Hell, he could be posting in an anti-filesharing site right now getting the "you should dump your GF because she is a thief" line.


alright this is awful. we get asked a serious question here, and we all keep getting off topic. on the other hand, that other thread does a lot better of a job discussing the topic, and already EC and me have pretty much just retyped our responses from that thread here.

[notbob]

meanwhile, his computer is probably full of porn that he didn't buy and software he borrowed from a friend. the thing about moralists is that they usually apply the moralism to someone else. i have actually heard this response when confronted with their own inconvenient moral lapses "this isn't about me, i'm talking about you!"

by the way, i was totally on topic. she is looking for evidence, i am telling her evidence is irrelevant

[Mels_Smileys45]

Lets address the rape issue. This dood is like what? Well over 18 maybe? And youre still Kari14 perhaps 15 or even 17 by now. Ehhh, 17 is close enough

[Sephiroth]

Two weeks ago, I burned a CD for my boyfriend. He didn't ask for it - I only made it for him as a kind gesture. To be surprise, he gave the CD right back to me. " I can't accept this," he said.

Now I should have seen it coming seeing that his a typical just-out-of the-military, conservative Republican type of guy.

However, the fact of the matter is that:
1. is head over heels in love with me
2. approves of almost everything I do
3. does not have the guts to reject anything I give him

But apparently he felt pretty strongly about protecting copy right laws that he had the audacity to give back a gift his girlfriend had made for him staying up to 3 in the morning right before a big final exam.

So then I got into a big argument with him. This isn't about morality - it's about etiquette. However, I am a pretty rational person and like to prove myself right through intelligent conversation, not emotional hissy fit.

Does anyone have the greatest argument ever for justifying P2p?

Maybe you ought to educate him of the morality of the entertainment industry, how they have fixed prices, screw artists, and abuse the law and government to protect their crummy business model rather than evolve. Who does he want to protect the artists or the media companies who have no problem with abusing artists, consumers and the law if if it is in their best interest.

Just because the CD was burned doesn't mean it is stolen, you can buy DRM free mp3 from amazon where you can burn that to CD AFAIK. Just creating a mix cd I don't think actually violates copyright laws. How you obtained it may be open to question.

If he would rather support artists than download stuff on the internet then good for him. I don't think P2P really needs to be justified, P2P is just a form of technology and it has many legitimate and legal uses. If he sees all P2P bad because some people use it for bad then I think that is pretty narrow mined.

I think the other advice in this thread is bad because they say it is about compromise yet they urge you to not compromise which seems kind of contradictory. If this is a issue big enough to dump someone you really like, it is up to you. IMO I think it would be kind of silly to dumb over this. Just get him a gift card to one of the legal music stores like amazon mp3 or something.

Also ignore Notbob he is extremely biased against republicans and generally anyone that doesn't believe everything he says is right.

[El Comandante]

Also ignore Notbob he is extremely biased against republicans and generally anyone that doesn't believe everything he says is right.

I still say go for the diamond.

http://i224.photobucket.com/albums/dd252/salamooch/DiamondAss.gif

[Lord_of_the_Dense]

This has the making for a classic thread.

I'd like to see Krell, Grab and aqlo stop by.

Also:

http://www.zeropaid.com/bbs/showthread.php?t=14453

http://www.zeropaid.com/bbs/showthread.php?t=14659

[kari14]

Thanks.

I appreciate everyone's input.

However, I didn't find any that were worth using because everyone talked about the reasons why P2P should be legal and not why he should condone breaking the law. If we are to question the law in and of itself, then that is fine. But I can't find the reasons why we should break the law when it is the THE LAW.

Now I'm not sure if I agree with that statement myself. Should I be able to break the law if it is a stupid law? But if it was up to us to interpret what a stupid law is, wouldn't everyone just say every law they want to break is stupid? So I guess I'm still haven't answered the question whether P2P is a stupid law. I can think of statistics that suggest that P2P is a stupid law but does that mean I can break it?



i say dump the jarhead and find yourself a better boyfriend

i say run. far far away

I'm not sure if I want a relationship advice from ZP.... :icon_fara



There has been numerous discussions on this subject. I will see if I can find one of them.

here is one of the better ones.

http://www.zeropaid.com/bbs/showthread.php?t=45821



Also I apologize for making this thread even though there seem to be various ones already out there, but they all seem to tell me the reasons why P2P should be legal and not why you should condone breaking the law. IDK.

[w31n3r]

I'm not sure if I want a relationship advice from ZP.... :icon_fara


see signa? thats what the cheesy sphinx is used for.

there is no justification for breaking the law. if thats all that you're asking, then you have your answer. yes, mom and dad were right all along, who'd have thunk it?

in light of this astounding revelation i offer you two solutions to your predicament:

1. ask your boyfriend to give you $320 for 20 CDs bearing the 20 songs you want to write for him to showcase your true love and appreciation for him. inform him that you cannot buy from iTunes or other sites as their shitty bitrates will not sufficiently reflect your true love for him. don't forget to ask for an extra $50 to cover your transportation, parking, and other miscellaneous costs you will encounter on this journey of love.

2. search for independent artists who are independent for no other reason other than that they are pure shit(there are plenty of them). burn a DVD (it has to be a DVD) full of their music in MP3 format. make your boyfriend swear on your love that he will listen to this day and night.

i look forward to seeing your boyfriend in these forums soon.

[Signa]

Should I be able to break the law if it is a stupid law? But if it was up to us to interpret what a stupid law is, wouldn't everyone just say every law they want to break is stupid?

I kinda disagree with that one. Yes, if everyone abused that question to justify anything, it could get messy. But I think when enough people question a law, it really does start to become a real question. When enough of those people have good evidence to refute the reason for that law, then we have a REAL issue.

We are supposed to be a government for the people, by the people. So when did the general population start to say "hey! we need laws to protect our ideas!"? (im sure it was in the 1800's when everyone was inventing crap) sure, fine, we got some protections against idea thieves, but now, the descendants of those who made it big back then asked for tougher laws and fixed loopholes so that anyone who tries to steal ideas gets punished harder.

now wait, the people didnt ask for this law, it was a private interest group. Private interests are not "the people." Suddenly, we have a law that was made that doesnt serve everyone's interests. That to me, is a bad law.

Does breaking bad laws *really* justify using p2p? i still have to say no. Even so, it wasnt a law that should have been made in the first place, or at least, amended by the people to properly reflect today's conditions. At this point though, there isnt any hope of fixing this mess the way it should be fixed. none of us have any money or power, and the IP owners do. there isnt anything that can be done; and i guess that is enough justification for me. Its a bit Robin Hood-ish and wrong, but paying full price for crap entertainment isnt exactly right either. Its about taking control back from the people with power that dont deserve it, and I have to say its working.

[notbob]

there is no law against burning cds. in the US, you can make copies of music you own. now if you "borrow" (i'll use the term loosely) music, you still aren't committing a crime, you could be infringing on a copyright (i say could because you may have fair use or educational exemptions). copyright infringement is not a crime, it's a civil matter (the copyright owner can sue you, but it has nothing to do with the cops) prereleases and dvds are another story. dvds have no fair use because they are encrypted, and in order to copy, you have to decrypt, which breaches the DMCA. prereleases were made into a criminal offense by congress (and the media companies who own them)

there are a lot of ignorant sheep out there who love to be trampled by corporations because it's the american way. know your rights and don't fall for the bullshit

[HelenaP]

...

there are a lot of ignorant sheep out there who love to be trampled by corporations because it's the american way. know your rights and don't fall for the bullshit

I feel like giving such a right- wing, "Amen!"
So I did...

[Gamer8585]

IANAL, but....

You could start off by telling him that downloading copyrighted songs is not a crime to begin with. You could inform him that the illicit act is only in the UPLOADING of songs, and while illicit it is not a crime (that is you can't loose your freedom [be jailed] for it), but a civil matter (copyright infringement).

Or you could inform him of the concept of popular veto, where by the electorate of a nation decides to ignore laws they feel harm society rather then help it. If you accept that concept of "right to self-determination" (and if he is a tight ass right-winger he damn well better or he is nothing more than a closet fascist) then you accept the premise that the consent of citizens of a nation is the harbinger of legitimacy of every law and without it any law is meaningless (and probably unenforceable). While not technically recognized in a legal sense the it may be a mitigating factor in court.

Or you could take a more deontological approach and show him exactly how the excessive amount of copyright has become harmful to the nation at large, and how large cartels have been abusing it. To do that you just have to turn on the TV or Radio and have him in front of either for a good few days. Warning: He may try to commit suicide if you leave him there too long.

Or you could inform him that its because of a free flow of information (even the illegal kind) that help bring down communism in Russia and Easter Europe, and is helping to fight the war on terror though cheep and easy "soft power." And that any attempt to restrict it means that he hates America and wants the terrorists to win (its an argument that was able to get Bush reelected, so if its that effective I say try it out).

And there are dozens of other arguments I'm sure you can find, but my brain is tapped out at the moment. So good luck to you.

[StormNinja]

In my opinion this is a case where both sides are right; however, that does not excuse an alarming lack of tact and diplomacy on the part of the boy friend.

#1. A gift of music was given to a person. It was a simple gesture. The manner in which the music was acquired is not relevant. It could have just as easily been piece milled from a collection of cassettes, CDs and off air FM radio recordings. Clearly, no monetary profit was involved or plagerism. The person receiving this gift should have simply accepted it in the spirit that it was given.

#2. On the other hand some people see this a strictly black and white issue. Even if that were the case. It would have been a simple matter for the boyfriend to say, "Thanks. I really appreciate the effort and thought that went into this gift. I am grateful but for future reference, I do not agree with P2P music downloading and would prefer that gifts of another kind."

It makes the point and respects the feeling and intent of the giver. As I said it's a matter of tact and diplomacy which quite coincidently is not a hallmark of current US Foreign Policy.

My opinion is P2P is justified if the material is for personal use and if the material used is not commerically exploited at the expense or credit of the original artist(s). It is no different than making a recording from the radio.

[kari14]

In my opinion this is a case where both sides are right; however, that does not excuse an alarming lack of tact and diplomacy on the part of the boy friend.

#1. A gift of music was given to a person. It was a simple gesture. The manner in which the music was acquired is not relevant. It could have just as easily been piece milled from a collection of cassettes, CDs and off air FM radio recordings. Clearly, no monetary profit was involved or plagerism. The person receiving this gift should have simply accepted it in the spirit that it was given.

#2. On the other hand some people see this a strictly black and white issue. Even if that were the case. It would have been a simple matter for the boyfriend to say, "Thanks. I really appreciate the effort and thought that went into this gift. I am grateful but for future reference, I do not agree with P2P music downloading and would prefer that gifts of another kind."

It makes the point and respects the feeling and intent of the giver. As I said it's a matter of tact and diplomacy which quite coincidently is not a hallmark of current US Foreign Policy.

My opinion is P2P is justified if the material is for personal use and if the material used is not commerically exploited at the expense or credit of the original artist(s). It is no different than making a recording from the radio.

I appreciate this. Thank you.

[Signa]

i like gamer's post. comical, yet informative. Stormninja did a good job addressing the matter at hand more than the subject of the thread.

lol here i go wanting to say more in this thread, yet all that is left for me is to comment on other's posts.

[notbob]

the upload/download issue is a bit murkier than both sides of the p2p camp would lead you to believe. uploading and downloading are both infringement, the former by unauthorized distribution, the latter by unauthorized reproduction. downloading is a lot harder to prove, and is therefore more difficult to take to court (and as such has not been tried). that doesn't make it legal, it makes it untested in court (and still infringement). then, there's the issue of "making available" vs. uploading. court cases up until recently considered "making available" an offense (a recent case turned that over, which now makes "sharing" lawsuits more difficult).

clear as mud? there is no black or white in this situation. in the end, it depends what an individual judge thinks in your case (if you get sued)

[Sephiroth]

Thanks.

I appreciate everyone's input.

However, I didn't find any that were worth using because everyone talked about the reasons why P2P should be legal and not why he should condone breaking the law. If we are to question the law in and of itself, then that is fine. But I can't find the reasons why we should break the law when it is the THE LAW.

Now I'm not sure if I agree with that statement myself. Should I be able to break the law if it is a stupid law? But if it was up to us to interpret what a stupid law is, wouldn't everyone just say every law they want to break is stupid? So I guess I'm still haven't answered the question whether P2P is a stupid law. I can think of statistics that suggest that P2P is a stupid law but does that mean I can break it?


Also I apologize for making this thread even though there seem to be various ones already out there, but they all seem to tell me the reasons why P2P should be legal and not why you should condone breaking the law. IDK.

You are confusing P2P with Piracy and breaking of Copyright Law. They are not the same thing.

P2P is a type of network, no different than the internet. It is no different than a hammer, in that it can be used for good like building a house, or evil like beating someone up.

You can't unfortunately pick and choose the laws you want to obey. If you think one is wrong you can try to change it. There are organizations like the EFF which work to try to protect fair use and right abuse of copyright laws.There have been bad laws in the past that society rejected and have been changed some of the obvious ones are prohibition, segregation and slavery.

[Gamer8585]

the upload/download issue is a bit murkier than both sides of the p2p camp would lead you to believe. uploading and downloading are both infringement, the former by unauthorized distribution, the latter by unauthorized reproduction. downloading is a lot harder to prove, and is therefore more difficult to take to court (and as such has not been tried). that doesn't make it legal, it makes it untested in court (and still infringement). then, there's the issue of "making available" vs. uploading. court cases up until recently considered "making available" an offense (a recent case turned that over, which now makes "sharing" lawsuits more difficult).

clear as mud? there is no black or white in this situation. in the end, it depends what an individual judge thinks in your case (if you get sued)


I see where your coming from here notbob, but I have a response. Copyright Infringement in real property usually involves counterfeit goods. While people are prosecuted for the crafting and selling of said goods, I haven't heard of anyone being hauled off for buying a fake handbag. The real world analog would probably be the one a judge goes to for guidance on a digital case. This would make the uploader the counterfeiter and the downloader the buyer.

I also hope that the "making available" argument never rears its head again, if it is ever upheld then just the possession of any copyrighted material can be grounds for a lawsuit.



You can't unfortunately pick and choose the laws you want to obey. If you think one is wrong you can try to change it. There are organizations like the EFF which work to try to protect fair use and right abuse of copyright laws.There have been bad laws in the past that society rejected and have been changed some of the obvious ones are prohibition, segregation and slavery.

If you truly believe a law is wrong or unjust you have a moral obligation not to obey it while trying to change it. You have to accept the consequences for you actions and hope for leniency from the court (and maybe an old school Jury Veto if you're really lucky). Its blind obedience to the law that lets dictators oppress people. No, we can't just arbitrarily pick and choose what laws we want to obey, but we all have the ability to think and recognize the difference between right and wrong.

[notbob]

downloading, much like owning a fake purse, is a waste of a prosecutor's time and resources. sure, both are breaking the rules, but no prosecutor/copyright owner in their right mind would waste resources on such cases. they go where the money and publicity are, with distributors. the physical vs. theoretical argument is irrelevant, a straw man used to stab at content owners claims of "stealing". stealing/borrowing/sampling/counterfeiting it really doesn't matter. in the end it's all infringement, and if the owner wants to, they can go after you

just because you don't get caught breaking the rules it doesn't mean that what you are doing is right or justified. you can justify it any way you want, but it doesn't change the facts. seph brings up the technology end of it, that p2p isn't wrong or illegal, and he's right. of course p2p isn't being used to trade granny's cookie recipes, 99.99% is intellectual property. the fact that something is legal doesn't prevent it from being used to do naughty things.

we arbitrarily pick and choose which laws to follow all the time. copyright stuff, speeding, running a red light, underage drinking, you name it. nobody is perfect. ultimately, you have to weigh the risks of getting caught. is the risk worth the payoff? p2p for the most part is a pretty good payoff, but i'm not going to kid myself and say that it is right

[kevins8]

not sure whether this thread is dead or not, but here's my input just for the heck of it. p2p, as i see it, is like leaving a kid in a candystore and telling him that he shouldn't eat any because it's wrong but won't be punished if he does. the simple truth of the matter is that it's stealing. never mind that practically everyone's doing it, there's no justifying it.

i'm can't say that i never downloaded anything that i shouldn't, i'm just saying that it's wrong.

[Lord_of_the_Dense]

notbob posted.

This thread will never be dead.


LOTD
Justifying P2P Threads through the Millenium

[wapazoid]

Two weeks ago, I burned a CD for my boyfriend. He didn't ask for it - I only made it for him as a kind gesture. To be surprise, he gave the CD right back to me. " I can't accept this," he said.

Now I should have seen it coming seeing that his a typical just-out-of the-military, conservative Republican type of guy.

However, the fact of the matter is that:
1. is head over heels in love with me
2. approves of almost everything I do
3. does not have the guts to reject anything I give him

But apparently he felt pretty strongly about protecting copy right laws that he had the audacity to give back a gift his girlfriend had made for him staying up to 3 in the morning right before a big final exam.

So then I got into a big argument with him. This isn't about morality - it's about etiquette. However, I am a pretty rational person and like to prove myself right through intelligent conversation, not emotional hissy fit.

Does anyone have the greatest argument ever for justifying P2p?

I say don't even waste your time trying to justify it. Let him go the legitimate route and pay for everything. Sooner or later, he'll ask you about getting something for him via P2P. When he does, tell him you can't because it's wrong. Seriously though, handing the CD right back to you was lame. There's plenty of out-of-the-military conservatives that spend their evenings illegally downloading copyright material.