It is obvious that we are waging a war against big corporations; or rather they are waging a war against us.
There are a few singled out for sharing, but is it legal? Forget fair, is it legal?
I dare you to find one person that didn't infringe on the copyright at least once. Find just one person that didn't record a TV show, and borrowed the tape, or copied a tape for a friend. I did it, you did it, the judge that judges the file sharing suite did it, and so did his kids.
Even the RIAA lawyer did it.
So we have one person singled out for breaking a law broken by every person in the world who once owned a recorder. Is it legal to single out? Can the judge be impartial when he did the same? When his kids did the same? Can the Jury?
I am no lawyer, but I think such lawsuits shouldn't be allowed, for just this cause. You can't accept a lawsuit for a person, because they broke the law... more.
I never have and anyone who has should be ashamed of themselves.Originally Posted by damocles
I don't need no stinking signature
Well there is a big difference between violating speed limits and violating copyright law by copying MP3s.
In the first example, you in fact (deep at heart) accept that driving fast is wrong, you may kill someone etc.
In the second example, you copy an MP3 and at the same time you do NOT accept that it is wrong to do so, because, you see no justification for it being wrong.
In other words, to be a law abiding citizen, one would have to see justification, and justifications are derived from what a community values as good or wrong, and n :bk ot from what a faceless legislator thinks.
kat[SIZE=7][COLOR=DarkOrange][FONT=Comic Sans MS]
is it right that the money that i spend on cd's go in fact to recording arist drug addiction?? And they get off on year of probation or reduced sentence cause their a celebrity? Soon they make these artist pay for their crimes, the better the world will be. Lower drug bill, lower cd prices.
What about the freedom of art?
You don't believe that all art should be freely accessable to anyone around the world?
Either way, people will always have opposing opinions on things, but do what you wish it's your life, beliefs and morals.
Sure, it's easy for the rich man with more than enough to supply him in life to look down on people who dont have it, but may not always necessarily the case for the poor people to look up and want what upper class society wont let them have.
There are two sides of the fence.
It has been and always will be my belief that p2p is benifiting society, bringing the poor and rich together and sharing between themselves.
lol piranetus.. your comparing apples and oranges.. THINK of it this way, if i had to paint by numbers to make my own rembrandt or copied the art or had the machine do it, then thats the same thing what we are doing.. They say that copying a person is its finest sence of flattery. What makes an artist value high is the fact hes dead and cant produce anymore.. Maybe when the artist dont produce no more work, maybe their cd's at 20 dollars will be will worth it. until they die, their cd's should be 8 dollars including tax.
I agree with Omyn completely. Art should be free. Piranetus are you saying that free books at a library is wrong? That casually going and getting a copyrighted movie from the shelf of the library is wrong? That's what I thought.
another defence could be, i didnt see the message on the blank cd-r that coping was illegal and it didnt say on the mp3 that distribution of this would result in a fine and or legal actions against me ... Play stupid =) ADMIT NOTHING, deny everything =)
If it were me under fire by them...
I would infect my computer with as many trojans as possible and claim someone else did it.
Of course the entire defense relies on how big the log files are at your ISP :]
That is pretty smart especially with the new software in trojans. You can say that there was a backdoor on your computer, and that a hacker acessed your computer and downloaded movies and music without my consent or permission.
Personally, I don't believe in freeway speed limits either. Outside urban areas, they exist simply to generate revenue. I pursue happiness at triple digits, as long as the weather & road conditions permit.
Sterilize the Stupid
When Napster first appeared, people downloaded songs, and if they liked them they went and bought the CD (the majority anyway). It was only after the music industry attacked Napster and made EVERYONE their enemy that CD sales started to dwindle.
I have to admit that a law is a law and if it is broken then punishment can be imposed regardless of how many others broke the same law. The key point here is that in most countries (especially the U.S.) the people en mass have the power to get those unpopular laws changed---even with big business fighting them with all their money.
How many people here wrote to legislators, MPs, or whatever? How many of us vote? How many of us boycott CD's?
There needs to be a concerted effort made to get those laws repealed (esp. the DMCA).
In re PiRaNeTuS' earlier post: What is really the difference if you have a book permanently at home or if it's at the library---I mean you can borrow that book any time you want. You just might have to go farther to get it. So for all intents and purposes, it's free. And just think of all the other people you're sharing it with, which you wouldn't be doing if it sat at your house on a shelf between readings.
The question is if I share a file with only three of my "friends" does that qualify as fair use? How would this relate to the fair use decision in the betamax case?
[QUOTE=PiRaNeTuS]And what has the general populace said about sharing non-authorized files? That it is illegal. That is what the general public has said. Not just one faceless legislator. You know (deep at heart) that sharing illegal mp3s, software, etc. is wrong. If you don't think that, then you do not have much morals. It's stealing, plain and simple.
NO NO NO NO, No! It's not wrong. Sharing files is not wrong. The society and the TV brainwashed you.
I work 8 hours a day, and though I also have a creative job, this doesn't allow me to sit on my ass and wait for the dividents to jump in my pocket. My creation is owned by the company I work for.
A painter makes a portrait, and he sells it. He makes money of his creative work, just once. If he wants more money, he starts painting again.
En engineer, a designer - same thing.
Why should be a composer's work be any different? Is his or her's work more valuable than that of a painter or that of an engineer?
Because it's copyrighted!
The Copyright law is what's not fair. Is what allows the corporations to have the cake and eat it too. And that's wrong.
You write a song, get paid for the hours you worked, as I do.
You sing a song, stand up and sing it. And get paid for it.
You make an album? I am OK with paying for it, if it's worth it.
I know what you're thinking. The copyright is the only thing that allows artists and others to get the money they deserve. True, but, as I said before, there should be a limit on how long the copyright can protect something.
Elvis died longtime ago. I want access to Jailhouse Rock. I deserve it. He certanly got his fair share. And I and many of us contributed to him getting his share. Maybe on paper it says that I only bought a disk from him, but we all bought his songs. We made his songs our own.
And this goes not only for music, but for everything that can be copyrighted: combustion engine, the telephone, viagra, etc.
Keep on breaking the copyright law! It is not fair! Copyright owners ar those who steal from us!
POWER TO THE PEOPLE!!!
This is just a weak argument. These bands couldn't be all that bad if you actually enjoy their music. If their drug use bothers you, don't buy the CD that supports the habit. Aside from weak, it's also vague. That is, unless we all agree that drugs are needed to generate a decent sounding album or song. Exteme, to say the least.
17 USC § 1008 Prohibition on certain infringement actions:
No action may be brought under this title alleging infringement of copyright based on the noncommercial use by a consumer for making digital musical or analog musical recordings.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks