Slashdot Mirror
EFA Claims No Illegal Material On mp3s4free.net
An anonymous reader writes "Electronic Frontiers Australia (www.efa.org.au) claims that the raids organized by the music industry on mp3s4free.net have come up with nothing. Only links to other sites and not copyrighted material have been found.
The music industry is now saying that just
linking is in itself illegal. This does not appear to be supported by Australian law." Update: 10/29 15:26 GMT by T : This story originally referred to "mp3s4free.com," while it should have said -- and has been corrected to read -- "mp3s4free.net."
Yes! Google, I have you now...
~ Whence do you come, slayer of men, or where are you going, conqueror of space?
> Electronic Frontiers Australia (www.efa.org.au) claims that the raids organized by the music industry on mp3s4free.com have come up with nothing. Only links to other sites and not copyrighted material have been found. The music industry is now saying that just linking is in itself illegal.
MP3s, WMDs, it's all the same...
Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
If you ask me where Fred lives and I tell you he lives next door, that's fine. If you ask where you can hire a hitman and I tell you that Fred can do it for you and he lives next door, I could be an accomplice to murder.
Same with linking. If a site posts links to other sites and one (or more) of them contains something illegal, but the illegal content was neither the overt or covert reason for the link, then that should be fine. But if the purpose of the link is solely or primarily to help you do something illegal then the person posting the link should be regarded as an accomplice.
Obviously this requires discretion on the part of law enforcement agencies and, specifically, judges.
It's mp3s4free.net, not mp3s4free.com.
Rank Presidents by th
I would hardly equate downloading music with drug pushing. That's the sort of FUD that got the DMCA and PATRIOT Acts passed in this country. Don't be so quick to piss away your rights.
blog
If Australian law is anything like US law, in order to obtain a search warrant the lawyers for the music industry had to provide affidavits to the court giving their reasons to believe that the web site contained infringing material. Since the site in fact contains only links, either they lied in their affidavits, which would be both perjury and a fraud upon the court, or they didn't even bother to look at the site, which would be grossly negligent.
Am I missing something, or are they in very deep legal trouble?
The problem with analogies is they are very seldom correct.
It is legal to walk down the street listening and singing to Britney Spears.
It is not legal to walk down the street listening and singing while taking LCD.
Dacels Jewelers can't be trusted.
While I agree there are moral implications beyond the law (law != morality is one of the first things you learn in legal units), you analogy is somewhat flawed in that buying drugs is an offence (depending on substance and jurisdiction) mainly because of the harm it causes to the user. I've yet to hear of anyone suffering chronic psychosis from listening to illicitly copied MP3s (though I could probably see it happening with some of today's more popular artists)...
I for one welcome our new SCOviet Russian overlords to whom all our base are belong.
Buy Steampunk Clothing Online!
Linking per se is not illegal, but linking to infringing material will be, especially when you have reasonable belief that the material is illegal.
In the case of google or a search engine, they have a good defence: file a DMCA take down notice to have the infringing material unlinked. It is unreasonable to expect that google would self-police their content, it's just intractible.
But when you have a site set up, specifically to provide references to infringing material, largely for the purpose of allowing people to access that material, then I'm afraid you probably don't have a strong case. It's already looking bad "in principle", despite any technical issues.
Attempting to "beat the system" by using this approach is really not the way forward for any advocacy over rights. It's effectively trying to cheat around the technical points while in principle supporting copyright infringement.
It is what you get when you crush the screen on your cellphone and snort it up a rolled up $20 note ;-)
Nobody expects the Spanish Inquisition!!
Does this mean linking a site with links to illegal material is also a crime? Where does it stop? A link of a link of a link? Can you prove that they were purposely attempting to provide aid to gain illegal material?
Your analogy is harsh, your logic surely missing a couple key points. Assisting access to illegal materials requires proof. At least some sort of proof that they were purposely providing aid for illegal services.
To use your brutal analogy. You can't pay your tutition. An old friend lends you a couple hundred that you'll pay back. Later you tell your best friend about this great loaner. Your best friend goes to 'loaner', who ends up being a crack dealer. You are the link. Are you guilty?
This would be one hell of a brutal world if intent is no longer required to be proven.
And please don't use analogies involving drugs. If you can't see the moral difference between crack and mp3s then you are in poor shape morally. And the kids won't believe a word you say.
I fully agree that the law is an ass in this case as the horse has well and truly bolted with respect to MP3s and their distribution through the net. It was also a long bow to draw to connect drug pushing to providing a portal to get MP3s (are people not connected enough to get onto waste networks?).
the point was more that it was a "no shit sherlock" sort of situation that they didn't have anything dodgy on their own site.
Nobody expects the Spanish Inquisition!!
Guy: Hey man, do you know where the drug dealers on this block are?
Me: Um, there's a sketchy guy that hangs out on the corner over there who might know about it.
Cop: FREEZE!! You're under arrest for drug dealing!
Me: Damn you DMCA! Now I'm a drug dealer cause I know where the sketchy people hang out!
Didn't we already try this?
Introducing the new Occam Fusion! Now with sqrt(-1) fewer blades!
fair call re a poor analogy - should have chosen something also dodgy to make the point but not quite as emotive as drugs. ;-)
I am quite clear on the difference between crack and MP3s - nobody has yet developed a mechanism (other than mail order sites I would suppose) to deliver drugs via a dial-up connection
Nobody expects the Spanish Inquisition!!
It's hardly fair, but the DMCA already has a positive track record in this area; 2600 was forced to remove a link on their webpage to a separate page which hosted the crack that disabled DVD copy protection.
MP3s themselves != illegal. The question comes into play when copyrights get involved. MP3s are an audio compression format, nothing more. Let's not get this mixed up though I'm sure the RIAA is trying to give the term 'MP3' a negative connotation.
Consider the chilling (abbusable) effect of making linking illegal or conspiritorial act.
You have a problem with a person or organization. You link to their site as an example of the problem you have with them. (Say you link to the Debold site because they are "election fraudsters".)
If your problem is that they can (a) persue you because you linked to their stuff or (b) change the page you innocently linked to to an infringing content site (you infringe their content, but they don't, so clearly you meant others to infringe their property.)
Plus there is a proof-by-induction problem. You link to a friends page because you like him. Unbenonst to you, he links to infringing material. An over-zealous RIAA decides that the "only possible reason" for you to have linked to such a malcontent was that you must share his every view.
How many link steps does it take to wash an outgoing link?
Suppose you have a bunch of links lying fallow on your friends page that you haven't bothered to clean out for a while. A new user takes over an old firends equally fallow account and posts kiddie porn. Your link reads (and always had read) something innocent like "A young lady who's company I enjoy" but "margrets-life.com" now takes you to naughty-margret the hottest little 12 year old in siagon...
Its a mire.
You sould be able to link to anything. Essentially when you link you are in a crowded stadium and you are pointing your finger across the crowded field (at a possible stranger). Such pointing should not make you responsible for the actions of the person you are pointing at.
Its just too much "who guesses what whom intended where? We'll let the prosicutor who is up for reelection decided... he should be impartial..."
(And yes, this goes for a link that says "crack and murder-for-hire at franks house" because when you wrote it, it might have been a joke. How do you *really know* what frank does in his off time anyway?)
Don't sacrafice your life on the alter of "seeming reasonable".
Innocent people shouldn't be forced to pay for inferior software development.
--"Code Complete" Microsoft Press
They say knowledge is power, but knowledge isn't grounds for a lawsuit.
-Look lively. LOOK LIVELY!!! --Mr. Shmallow
"Electronic Frontiers Australia (www.efa.org.au) claims that the raids organized by the music industry on mp3s4free.com have come up with nothing."
How much nothing did they find? No matter--whether it was 4 minutes 33 seconds or only a minute, nothing is still a copyright violation, and John Cage's publishers will have something to say about the nothing that was found!
The question is, how do you remove it?
So let's say linking to "illegal" mp3s IS wrong, let's say the highest freaking court in the land will rule in favor of the music industry, well hoopy do, fucking jay walking is wrong too. Do policeman go chasing after people every time they see one walk against a red man? No of course not, they have better things to do. In a society with so much "real" crime going on why is so much attention given to bloody 15 years olds downloading the latest Britney single? Fuck the music industry and their profits, and fuck the elected officials whos pockets are getting pissed in by these people. What a bloody waste of resources chasing after file downloaders.
So when Bush said Iraq had WMDs, he really meant to say that they LINKED to WMDs... :-p
Absolutely right! That is why we throw newspaper and TV personel in prison when they mention addresses... Oh wait...
-
- - You can't take something off the Internet! That's like trying to take pee out of a swimming pool.
and while subverting a copyright mechanism is a crime. breaching copyright is a civil matter.
Most MP3's come from CD's with no copyright mechanism so there is NO CRIME being committed.
Yes you can be sued by the copyright holder, but that's a different kettle of fish.
'There is a Light that never goes out.'
It might be that the site just had a list of MP3's that are in the public domain. Just because something is in MP3 format doesn't mean that it isn't legal
Rus
Cheap UK and US VPS
> The U.S. government is tired of invading poor countries. Since Australians are possibly doing something that is annoying, the U.S. will invade tomorrow.
> Don't worry Australians, it will be less than a year until you get your $87 billion of U.S. taxpayer money for reconstruction, government corruption, and to help make the Halliburton company richer.
Coming to a theatre near you soon...
Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
This is the same argument used in the 2600.com case for linking to DeCSS, looks like they'll have a more difficult job pursuading an Australian judge.... we can but hope!
Humm. Is this anything like SCO declaring copyright is illegal?
fifth sigma, inc.
Fermi's Solution: Any sufficiently advanced civilization either destroys itself or transcends to superintelligence.
Fermi's Precipitate: Civilizations that destroy themselves.
-
- - You can't take something off the Internet! That's like trying to take pee out of a swimming pool.
I have a test CD for setting up sound systems and checking CD players specifications. It has a track of silence as a refrence for signal to noise measurements. I wonder if it is in violation of copyright? I didn't see any refrence to cage.
The truth shall set you free!
Darl is sharing his new crack. Now the Ausie recording greedheads are on crack too. Linking is not illegal. Sorry no cigar. I hope the courts that issued permission for these raids jambs them up side the head with some nice cash penalties.
If you don't like what I write don't be a CS and mod it down. Refute it.
Yea I can't spell. So what is your point?
I always understood it to be more the lines of intent. If you intend to stand at the corner of a school and get kids to buy crack by telling them to go to the store then it is illegal. If you tell them where to go buy ice cream ral cheap and it just so happens that the place also sells crack then it is not. Or at least that is what the founding fathers meant - which we have drifted quite a bit in the last 50 or so years from that.
I do not know what aulstailian law says on this, or if this is even the case anymore in the US.
It is clear that the site was linking to copyrighted MP3 websites for the purpose of downloading them. I would imagine under US law this would be illegal. Google, OTOH, only runs a bot to index things and isn't trying to peddle in music piracy. Though once more I have no idae about aussie law (and not being a lawyer only what I understand it to be in the US, which could be wrong). Deep linking with the expressed intent of music piracy is also wrong (saying "Hey, go look here for a list of sites" isn't really different from "here is a list of sites" and would get you no place ih the courts)
If it is illegal to pirate music then what they did should be illegal (though I am among the crowd that doesn't think it should be illegal, that is different from what the current laws are).
------- Sorry about the spelling, I suffer from two problems. Dyslexia makes it difficult to spell well, lazy makes it
ahem "Who are you who are so whys in the way of illicit...illicit science..."
--fetch daddy's blue fright wig, i must be handsome when i release my rage
I believe you mean LSD, d-lysergic acid diethylamide also known as acid, and not LCD which commonly refers to a liquid crystal display.
You mean you've never tried 17-inch Apple Studio Display? That shit will mess you up.
Don't even get me started on 23-inch Apple Cinema Display. That's some 'Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas' material right there. Bat country and everything.
What would they do if they found 'The Sound Of One Hand Clapping'. Hey do you realise that J Cage does own a the copywrite for the sheet music to his Silence. So it is illegal for you to Photo Copy and destribute for the purpose of performance a copy Silence! Thats why it's so fsck'n noisey in todays world I guess.
OH THE SHAME I fell off the wagon and use sigs again!
Hi all,
:)
trying to make linking illegal is sneaky, because here they are trying to take advantage of a subjective matter (illegal MP3s transfers). This issue is controversial ; thus, trying to enforce a ban on linking will be easier on a subject where people are not focused primarily on this concern. But it should appear much more clearly as a dangerous thing if applied for instance on content shifting trough time etc.
Pardon my English, but the Frenchies still can't admit that they are supposed to speak any other language than this of Napoleon the GRrrrreat...
JDif
Let's overcome our weakness.
I have a copy of that CD. Fortunately, the track to which you're referring is of hip-hop silence, which contains a two-second sample of Cage's original 4'33" repeated many times.
Listen to it again and you'll agree that the first two seconds sound exactly the same as the next two seconds, and so on. Actually, I'm surprised you didn't notice it before!
Hm what ping program are you using? The '-f' is actually the fun one and does something quite different from what you listed. From the man page:
-f Flood ping. Outputs packets as fast as they come back or one hundred times per second, whichever is more. For every ECHO_REQUEST sent a period ``.'' is printed, while for ever ECHO_REPLY received a backspace is printed. This provides a rapid display of how many packets are being dropped. Only the super-user may use this option. This can be very hard on a network and should be used with caution.
Well, this is the trick.
If you had a list of places that directed others as to where they could get drugs, while you may be helping people _acquire_ drugs, you are NOT participating through action in order to help the success of _selling_ drugs.
Thus you might be able to convict the person with the list as being an accomplice to the purchase of drugs, but he isn't an accomplice to the dealer, assuming that the list was his only connection.
The case on point that springs to mind here -- involving drugs, in fact -- is State v. Gladstone, 474 P.2d 274 (Wash. 1980).
I don't know enough about Australian copyright law to know whether or not such a thing would work, but if this were brought in the U.S. it could _only_ work as contributory infringement (maybe vicarious infringement in rare cases), where the direct infringement was the downloader reproducing copies. This isn't a common argument, but it has been successful before over here. Intellectual Reserve v. Utah Lighthouse Ministry, 75 F. Supp. 2d 1290 (D.Utah 1999). Again though, of course, assuming that there was no interaction with the distributors being linked to, there could be no contributory or vicarious liability predicated on infringing distribution.
But whether Australian courts would reach a similar holding as in Utah Lighthouse, I don't know. Perhaps we have some people here that are familiar with their copyright law and who could comment on this for us?
-- This and all my posts are in the public domain. I am a lawyer. I am not your lawyer, and this is not legal advice.
Part of the free speech movement at Berkeley in the sixties. I think he did a little too much LDS.
Him? He's harmless. Back in the '60s he was part of the peace movement at Berkeley. I think he did a little too much LDS
turn up the jukebox and tell me a lie
Let me think. I'm in London. Uh, let's say Brixton, Kings Cross (etc).
Does that mean underground maps are now illegal?
no taxation without representation!
What exactly is the difference between drugs and mp3s again? :) Both are artifically scarce, too expensive (cds that is), and a holy war has been launched against each of them so that ceartin entities may remain in denial about the realities of the world in which they live. And lastly, both are issues on which "the people" clearly disagree with the powers that be.
Religion is a gateway psychosis. -- Dave Foley
Libraries too contain information on how to access illegal things, does that make them liable too? Use your imagination before you dispute my claim.
.smell my feet.
More and more money and time in the UK is spent chasing "mostly honest" individuals for the slight slips, why?
Because they don't run, they don't hide and they pay up.
Expect this trend to spread.
Great time and money are spent trapping motorists who speed by as little as 10% such that around speed cameras motorists now take their eyes off the road in order to check their speed to the meter.
Someone will be harrassed by local youths and when provoked to right back, get arrested - why - because they didn't run away.
Expect more of this as law enforcement agencies have to meet their targets they pick easier targets.
Not all law enforcement are like this, I know some who like to target the truly criminal.
However...
blog.sam.liddicott.com
I would think that sites like this would be to the advantage of the music industry. Don't bother going after the site, just go after all the links to illegal music that they have ever so nicely collected for you.
kiwi
In response to a complaint we received under the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, we have removed 7 result(s) from this page. If you wish, you may read the DMCA complaint for these removed results.
That's right, Google does self-police their content. They have to, if they want to remain a company.while subverting a copyright mechanism is a crime. breaching copyright is a civil matter.
Most MP3's come from CD's with no copyright mechanism so there is NO CRIME being committed
you have your terminology wrong. subverting copy PROTECTION is a crime. mp3s come from cds with no copy PROTECTION. most music distributed on cd is protected by copyright. most of the stuff that isnt protected by copyright is crap, and no one would convert it to mp3 if it was on a cd that they could use for target practice.
Counter-sue? Press for indeminization...
I posted last week about running for parliament on a technology based platform. Well, I've set up the first draft of the party website:
http://www.users.on.net/grypen/politics/
Please mirror the site if you can, there's a ZIP file (92K) on site for those who want to download it. You can bitch and moan all you like, or you can DO something about it. I plan to.
Quizo69
Visceral Psyche Films
buying drugs is an offence... mainly because of the harm it causes to the user
I realise this is off-topic, but I feel the need to vent anyway. I have never understood why it is illegal to do harm to yourself. After all, you own your body, is it as least once thing that isn't licensed to you (Does God have a EULA?), and so why shouldn't we be allowed to do whatever we want to it?
The only arguments I can think of are:
Intentional damage to yourself will cost the state money when you check yourself into a hospital. This applies in countries like mine, the UK, but not the USA, where healthcare is not funded by the government. Even in the UK, I wonder how hard it would be to limit the free healthcare to those who did not cause intentional damage to themselves. (It would also be very handy to lump smokers into this category.)
The other argument I can think of is
Being under the influence of drugs may prompt you to cause harm to others. This, surely, can be solved in neater ways than banning drugs outright. Ban them in public places, but allow them at home.
I don't take drugs, I don't even smoke, but banning them does seem unfair.
Anyway... </rant>
This does not appear to be supported by Australian law.
And why should it be? Just because i know theres a drug dealer down the road and may direct the odd pot head to him. I dont think im breaking the law. Just helping someone feed their addiction.
Immoral as it is, its not illegal.
Giving IE users a taste of their own medicine since 2005 - http://pods.-is-a-geek.net/
Uh, yeah, the CRACK STORE. That's where I buy all my crack. When I feel like some heroin, I go to the HEROIN STORE.
You may want to read up on logic as this is what is refered to as an ad-hominem attack. If I said "the street corner where they buy crack" vs "crack store" it doesn't make a difference.
I must have been asleep in civics class when the covered how Ice Cream fits into the Bill of Rights. Which amendment was that? The "right to bear double scoops" one, right?
I would suppose that the right to express where to purchase cheap ice cream would be covered by the first amendment. At the very least if it was made illegal to say where to purchase it, the first amendment would pretty much cover that. There is no right to express the cheapest places to purchase crack in an attempt to sell the controlled substance - hence intent is important.
Is it clear? Wouldn't it be funny if you actually went to the site and found out it wasn't what you thought it was?
Wouldn't it be funny if you had an actuall argument? So far we have seen that I didn't use the correct slang for the place to purchase crack, that there is no right to bear double scoops, and you think the article says something else. All of which has little to do with the central thesis that intent is supposed to be relevent in these types of cases (which was a direct repsonse to the parent post). And lastly you throw in some name calling without any substance (which is once more ad-hominem) to prove some point that you never express.
The only way you could have made a more malformed argument is to accuse me of being wrong because I mispelled many words.
------- Sorry about the spelling, I suffer from two problems. Dyslexia makes it difficult to spell well, lazy makes it
You may no tbe guilty but you could get into a whole lot of shit. If the guy's house is being watched or bugged (from the outside) there will be photos and recordings of you. Saying "I need money for tuition" has probably been said somewhere to inply purchasing crack If the friend you sent over buts crack and gets arrested he is goin to try to get out of it and will probably talk in any way, such as saying yo sent him over there. The police can investigate you and even red flag you to the IRS. No you did not do anything illegal but it may cost you 20-30 grand to prove it.
I eat my grapes at room temperature, cuz the cold ones hurt my teeth
You cant sing or play it loud enough for me to hear it.. I dont have a license to listen to any of her music.
You have in effect violated the 'unauthorized public performance' part of your agreement when you purchased the CD/Right to listen, or some such garbage.
( and of course insulted my ears. but that is a different issue )..
---- Booth was a patriot ----
Can't go to http://www.mp3s4free.net - I get a "Host not found" error. Is it just me?
As both selling drugs and copying (copyrighted) music without purchasing it are illegal, how are these two all that different?
Saying Android is a family of phones is akin to saying Linux is a family of PCs.
Seeing John Howard is s*cking the cock of every big business in Oz all at once it won't be long now till linking is illegal. He made chipping playstations etc illegal.
-- Karma Karma Karma Karma, Karma Chameleon - Boy George
It's not a completely insane analogy. Both drug dealing and downloading music happen mainly due to an artificial scarcity due to monopoly/drug war, which causes prices to be far higher than they should be. If prices weren't so high drug dealers wouldn't have the incentive to sell and music downloaders wouldn't have so much incentive to download (without then buying the CD, downloading to get a quick listen doesn't count in my book)
While health care in the US is not as socialized as in the UK or Canada, the governments (federal and states) spend a fairly large sum of money on health care in the form of medicare and medicaid. Also, if a patient has an emergency and no funds, the hospital is still required to treat him/her. Thus the damage they do to themselves is costing others.
Otherwise, I tend to agree with your post.
In Sweden (Europe) around two years ago some man in his 20ies was actually charged and found guilty to direct linking to illegally hosted copyrighted music - ven though he never had anything to do with the files themselves. He got away pretty easy money and time wise but still it set an example here what is legal and what isn't.
I coulden't find a story as it was a while ago, but I'm sure some Nordic reader here remembers it?
Why not? Both "crimes" were created entirely by government, not human nature. This is opposed to "natural" crime, i.e. the initiation of force (theft, fraud, threat, assault) which any human being would immediately (and necessarily) identify as "criminal" behavior, or simply behavior which violates the natural human concept of individual liberty. In the absence of government (coercion), neither drug using/selling or copying music would be considered an initiation of force.
So, the two examples of human behavior are quite similar in that each represents a voluntary act which has been criminalized by government.
No one has ever died from an overdose of poorly manufactured home made mp3's. It's pretty simple really
OP+1 wrote: I would hardly equate downloading music with drug pushing.
..... In the absence of government (coercion), neither drug using/selling or copying music would be considered an initiation of force.
OP wrote: Why not? Both "crimes" were created entirely by government, not human nature.
I don't want to claim that music copyright infringement is moral but, you can hardly claim that these are similar when the effects of the two "crimes" are poles apart!
The latter might reduce the income of an otherwise quite rich bunch of people but does relatively little damage to the perpetrator.
The former, OTOH, tends to make the perpetrators quite rich at the expense of generally completely screwing up the lives of others.
Simon
The whole (possibly misguided) drug thing focuses on the fact that it is illegal to buy, possess or use - however, it is not technically ILLEGAL to copy copyrighted material (no jail time or fine for doing so) - it is only an INFRINGEMENT of the rights-holder's rights. It is a cause for civil action, and there is no real basis for seizure, especially without due process. It is not like the criminal courts could really get involved if it weren't for the questionable extensions like DMCA.
Faith is the very antithesis of reason, injudiciousness a critical component of spiritual devotion. Jon Krakauer
Realizing that drug using/selling is a voluntary act of trade like any other, there is only one possible argument (although government would never word it like this): You don't own your own body. Government owns your body.
Sound far-fetched? Not to me. If you were the owner of your own body, then logically, you would be the only individual on the planet who could possibly decide what is acceptable behavior and what is unacceptable behavior for your body to engage in (so long as you don't violate the same rights of any other individual). But as we already know, you do not hold this power -- government does. How can an individual both (1) own their own body and (2) not hold complete and soverign rights over their own body? The answer is that it's not possible -- the individual does not, in fact, own their own body.
but since when has England accepted it is part of Europe
It *is* in Europe, just not in the european union.
That's different.
Ownership and usage are very different things. I, for example, own a frying pan. It is illegal for me to take my frying pan and smack you in the head with it.
This doesn't, however, mean I don't own my frying pan.
Heh! Only when the dumbasses credit Cage with the composition or allude to a derivative work based on it.
:-)
Yeah, this was a haw-haw post, but if you took a song I wrote and made it sound ANYWHERE near similar (even if just marginal) and then claimed I was a co-writer, I'd sue yer ass too (well, not until ya got famous though...don't want to shoot myself in the foot too soon).
I have a friend that was involved in something similar. My company designs and publishes sound design works for synths and otherwise. My friend decided he'd make an accurate Prepared Piano -- another Cagian creation. Unfortunately, he designed it to the exact specifications of Cages notes and proceeded to tell everyone that this was what it was intended for and in the liner notes stated that if Cage were alive, he'd endorse it...but it was for creating your own works.
His estate didn't like that and sued him. If he would have just left the descriptions as a more generic term and didn't reference this as THE definitive Cage Piano, then he would have been cool. I think the estate were assholes for doing it, but it was very clear noting their past actions what would happen, and thus he should have stayed away from that mine field altogether. I understand it from both ends, he was using Cage's works for his own profit, but he was also paying tribute to the man...
Doncha hate when someone takes a perfectly good joke post and posts something half serious along with it.
I think you skipped right over the "so long as you don't violate the same rights of any other individual", that's a very important moral principle.
Wrong analogy. Of course it would be illegal for you to attack another individual with your frying pan -- that would be a violation of the other individual's rights to ownership of THEIR own body. A better analogy would be whether it is "legal" for you to attack yourself (your own body which you supposedly own) with your frying pan. (The question is whether the individual actually possesses ownership over their own body, not whether the individual posesses ownership over another individual's body.)
What if their website had said something like:
"We've found the following MP3s on other websites that we believe may infringe copyrights. Our repeated calls to the RIAA have gone unanswered. In an effort call attention to this problem, we have included links to aid the copyright holder in their enforcement efforts. Unless you are a representative of the RIAA, clicking the links may be a violation of local and international laws".
This may to fix the MP3 problem, but not the $cientology problem.
Those are all "natural" crimes, i.e. behaviors which are naturally considered immoral (violation of human rights). What exactly makes you think these behaviors would be acceptable in the absence of government?
You link to a friends page because you like him. Unbenonst to you, he links to infringing material. An over-zealous RIAA decides that the "only possible reason" for you to have linked to such a malcontent was that you must share his every view.
Didn't we have this evil linking business before? If you merely know someone on the communist blacklist, then you are on the blacklist. Then recurse for those who know you.
Are you now or have you ever been a pirate sympathizer? Do you share in their anti-corporate views? God bless America.
The price of freedom is eternal litigation.
Yes it is. If you own your frying pan, you are allowed to do whatever you want with it as long as you don't infringe the rights of anyone else. So, by smacking me in the head with your frying pan, you would infringe my rights , which is why it is illegal for you to smack me. You are, however, allowed to smack yourself all you want, because you own the frying.
Ahem. (Best revival preacher's voice)
I think that it should be clear by now that the solution to the vast social problems of today is the internet. Where else do we have LINKS to Weapons of Mass Destruction? Where else to do we have nudity and violence galor? Were it not for the violation of our public decency caused by the intrusion of this vile satanic entity, the internet, we would be a peaceful people strong and secure in the bliss of ignorance.
Ignorance of the sins of the internet. The porn. The violence. The pedophiles sitting at their glowing screens temping the virginity of the children. Think of the children and the unlimited amount of smut, porn, nudity, violence, and crime that they are exposed to every single moment they are on the internet. The internet is everywhere. In your schools, in your homes, in cafes and parks, and in every businessplace in the world.
Yes, friends, we must petition our legislators to outlaw this vile corruption that has been visited upon us by the very forces of Hades; whose sole purpose is to consume the souls of our children and turn this blissfully ignorant world into a Hell on Earth.
I tell you now, brothers and sisters, that the root of all evil is money. And the internet's most profitable businesses are crimes against humanity: the violation of women and children who are hapless porn victims, the teenagers temped to steal billions from poor, starving musicians because that theft is merely a mouse click away. Click. Click. Click. Another poor musician starves to death.
We must empower the magnificent defenders of our blissful ignorance to protect us from these might forces of iniquity. The RIAA, The MPAA, our brothers in congress--yes children, you know the ones who share the views of our defenders; those tireless public servants who like the dearly departed Mr Sonny Bono-author of the copyright extension act that prevents Mickey Mouse from being turned into a vile star of pornography, crafted the DMCA, the COPA, and other valiant legislation. But we must have more. We must have an end to this internet thingy. Now. Before it is too late for our children.
Thank you and good night. Please donate heavily to our cause to protect our precious children.
Creative Spelling Copyright (2002). May use without Persimmons
True enough, but why does this not apply to alcohol, which causes deaths of both the imbibers and often innocent bystanders should they be in control of a vehicle, a gun, or a frying pan? Also, I think many drug-related deaths are due to the illegality of the supply -- low quality and contamination casuing complications, dirty needles causing hepatitis and AIDS; excessive prices leading to crime and self-neglect to pay for them.
mp3s4free.net is down. Guess the dark side won...
I don't get it.
Am I infringing copyright if I say "Leopold Stokowski and Mickey Mouse shake hands in Walt Disney's Fantasia?"
Am I committing an indecency if I say "Grove Press created a sensation when they published Henry Miller's Tropic of Cancer?"
Am I committing a terrorist act if I say "Nuclear weapons information which the government, in the eighties, claimed was classified, appears in the Encyclopedia Americana?"
I don't think so.
"How to Do Nothing," kids activities, back in print!
Well, the phrase having links to terrorist organisations keeps popping up as a vague but severely incriminating description in the media.
A few decades back, "having links to organized crime" was used, much more often, as a similar undisprovable slam by both the media and government.
In the Xanadu archetecture links were first-class objects, like documents rather than text IN documents, and could be authored in isolation.
And it seemed like every time some A-hole politician or reporter would slam someone as "linked to organized crime", one of us would say something like: "[A-hole] is linked to organized crime, and I can prove it. I just made the link myself."
Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
I always understood it to be more the lines of intent. If you intend to stand at the corner of a school and get kids to buy crack by telling them to go to the store then it is illegal. If you tell them where to go buy ice cream ral cheap and it just so happens that the place also sells crack then it is not. Or at least that is what the founding fathers meant - which we have drifted quite a bit in the last 50 or so years from that.
Given that Jefferson and Washington exchanged letters on cultivation techniques for increasing a hemp crop's potency as a drug (at the expense of its usefulness for rope and paper), and Franklin wrote and published pornography (and acknowledged fathering several dozen children on women to whom he wasn't married), I strongly suspect they didn't intend the new "limited" federal government to have drug wars or smut wars in the first place.
Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
The UK has been a member of the European Union since 1973.
Recent arguments are with regard to the single European Currency and the forthcoming European constitution, not EU membership.
Man, trying to use a windows box to ping-flood is like trying to run the 40 with a peg-leg.
If you really want to bring the riaa's site down just use your l33t hax0ring sk1llz and ddos with a bunch of zombies.
I am a leaf on the wind. Watch how I soar.
Others have written infamatory posts about sending people next door to a hitman. Links are nothing like murder and the person making the link has no idea what the person next door really has in his house. The situation is more like fining the phone company for listing a hitman's telephone number. Copying files hurts no one and associating that act with murder is only done to wip people up into a frenzy to do real harm.
The music industry really does hurt people. They really wants to RAID YOUR HOUSE AND PUT YOU IN JAIL. That's physical harm. In this case the search order was for obtaining a copy of the website. How stupid is that? They turned a man's house upside down to obtain something they could have gotten without leaving their offieces. They wanted to put him and his friends in jail and they are going to ruin him finacially as they try to put him there. That's real harm. The music industry has been composed of thugs since Gilbert and Sullivan got publishing your own notes to someone else's song outlawed and their thugs swept London breaking presses and legs.
Friends don't help friends install M$ junk.
I can equally malign the music industry in this case. First, the search warrent was for content they could have gotten without a raid at all: a website and logs. Instead of just downloading the site, the wrecked a man's house and a place of business. Second, I can speciously claim that all of the copyright violation sites were constructed by the music industry themselves to break a competitor with false accusations. My specious argument has as much weight as yours, more when you consider the thugish nature of the music industry.
Friends don't help friends install M$ junk.
I have never understood why it is illegal to do harm to yourself. After all, you own your body, is it as least once thing that isn't licensed to you (Does God have a EULA?), and so why shouldn't we be allowed to do whatever we want to it?
This is the classic libertarian argument that everyone espouses, but no one seems to get that it doesn't hold any water. There is practically NOTHING you can do on this planet that doesn't affect those around you. Who takes care of you in the hospital when you OD on drugs? Who scrapes you off a tree in their front yard only to watch you die in front of their kids (true story) because you weren't wearing a helmet? Whose unborn baby is taking in second hand smoke from someone who believes they are only affecting themselves? Who puts their life at risk rescuing you after you jump off of Niagra Falls? Even by just throwing away trash you affect others and your environment around you.
That's why there's no populated place on Earth without a government in place to enact laws. Though it's far from a perfect system, things are the way that they are to promote the progress of society as a whole. This individualism-is-ruler-of-all is just anarchy in disguise.
Alcohol is certainly more dangerous to the users and the bystanders than marijuana. But, don't ignore the damage done to bystanders from other drugs. There are plenty of examples of bystanders killed by drivers using drugs other than alcohol. Alcohol is exempted because drinking has been socially acceptable (generally speaking) for eons.
I think many drug-related deaths are due to the illegality of the supply
You're absolutely correct, as far as I'm concerned.
The real question is whether or not legallizing certain drugs would produce a net positive effect on society. Sure, we would have fewer murdering drug dealers, but we might have even more addicted young people. Nobody knows the answer to that question, but it may be worth trying an experiment.
(It would also be very handy to lump smokers into this category.) In the UK, for years smokers have paid more in tobacco-related taxes than it costs the health-service to look after them.
Each instance is treated diferent by society.
It is NOT illegal for me to say 14th and K when someone asks me where the hookers hang out. Should it be illegal for me to post this on a web site?
If someone asks me where to find MP3's I can tell them what I know. What is the difference when I post it on a web site? What about a snail mail, an email, a weekly publication, a megaphone, a sign on the side of my car?
Bad boys rape our young girls but Violet gives willingly.
If you smack yourself silly with a frying pan or cut yourself with a knife (you own one of those too I assume), and some govermental agent is aware of this action, You will be hauled off as being suicidal and locked up for a couple of weeks untill you no longer are a "threat to yourself or others". so this would lend credence to the "Govt. owns your butt theory" and they would prefer you not damage it.
I used to have a cool sig, back when I cared
There are plenty of examples of bystanders killed by drivers using drugs other than alcohol.
cite? the stupid PSA with the crash dummies doesn't count, its "statistics" are so deliberately vague (doesn't even say if the "reckless drivers" did anything beyond going 1/2mph over the speed limit, let alone whether they were in fact _only_ on marijuana)
We've secretly replaced Slashdot with new Folgers Crystals - let's see if it notices.
A quick google search turns up a few. However most municipalities don't distinguish between dui by alchohol or drugs.
I E2 0
I E3
http://www.helsinki-hs.net/news.asp?id=20010116
http://www.helsinki-hs.net/news.asp?id=20010117
Also don't forget the increased crime rate from addicts stealing, robbing and murdering to get their next fix.
If you honestly think marijuana/ or any other drug for that matter is a harmless drug, then your are horribly naive, My wife and I do foster care for the state and I've seen first hand the affects these harmless drugs have on these addicts children. Not just the absolute physical torture that being born addicted causes, but the severe emotional damage caused by living in a house where mommy's more concerned with getting her next joint. Some of these parents who "just use pot" are just as bad as the ones using meth, or crack.
Maybe you can handle smoking pot, but many of them can't. And after seeing the carnage it causes to society by the those that can't, it definitely worth it to me to keep it illegal.
Ah, the "If you don't like it, leave." argument.
I find it particularly ironic that you used it in this thread, where the question is whether you or the government own your body. This is especially apt with regards to emigrating to another country.
Nominally, there are no laws preventing you from going to another country. IN THIS COUNTRY. But every other possible country you could enter has laws regarding you becoming a permanent resident. So you would have to come back, whether you like it or not.
So to "remove" yourself, you would have to kill yourself - is it your body to kill? Isn't (bizarely and ridiculously) attempted suicide a crime too (don't fail)?
I love the way "give us your tired, your poor, your huddled masses" has become "if you don't like it, F$%% off!".
"you own your body" - This is (a) a ridiculous oversimplification, and (b) the conclusion that you can harm yourself in any way you see fit does not follow.
Re.: (b):
For instance, I think some countries (France?) may have laws that prohibit you from destroying works of art of national importance--even if you are the owner, I suspect. Even in the U.S., we have laws against destroying heritage properties (I live in a neighborhood filled with them). And that's even before we get to taxation laws. If you took all your income and burned it before paying taxes on it, the IRS would get you for tax evasion. In cases of grave necessity, too, the state can expropriate your property while paying just compensation.
It's just not the case that you are permitted to do whatever you like with your property. While we may disagree with any one particular such law, it seems implausible to suppose that ALL such laws are wrong. It does not seem possible to run a state without some such laws.
Likewise, the state has the right to demand services from you (whether in exchange for benefits such as protection from crime, or because it has God-endowed authority, or whatever the right theory of the state is). Services such as jury duty, military service when the state is threated by foreign invaders, etc. It does not follow from your owning your body that you may do with it as you wish.
Re.: (a):
To think that our relationship to our bodies is that of ownership is a massive oversimplification. First, it implies an objectionable Cartesian dualism--as if we were one thing and the body were something outside of us. Secondly, it has unacceptable ethical consequences. It makes assault with battery, and even rape, a property crime, for instance. It means that if we accept the possibility of the Government taxing us, we should also accept that the Government could take one of our kidneys--after all, it's mere property.
"Although speeding and alcohol remain among the primary causes of fatalities, driving under the influence of drugs appears to be an increasingly widespread road safety problem. In the U.K., for instance, recent research indicated that 18% of those who died in traffic accidents had one or more illicit drugs in their systems."Presumably, the offender was not the only person injured in every case.
"A recent report from P Swann of VicRoads Safety Department stated, "The real risks of being killed when driving whilst impaired by cannabis", shows that cannabis intoxication leads to a relative risk of six of causing a fatal road accident. Cannabis intoxication alone (that is excluding cases where alcohol or other drugs were also present) was found to be responsible for 4.3% of driver fatalities. These cannabis related deaths are not included in the ABS figures cited above."
Is it possible that *if* the site is found to be clean of any infringement material that they can counter sue for damages made by taking their site down? I think it would be great to give them a taste of their own medicine...
As for the whole drugs thing... Get a Life! That is an abismal analogy, and you simply come accross as an old FUD'dy dudy. Many thing that are illegal in the US are perfectly legal in the Netherlands. Likewise, things legal in the US are illegal in places like Saudi.
So is the RIAA going to sue itself? Since I'm sure if I follow the links from their website far enough I can find some infringeing mp3's.
They are the ones who putted that tag from the deamon ... (i am afraid my post will get censored with this words ...) ..
O god what an evil tool created on purpose to help infringe the IP of this pooor workers of the suit bullshit bussiness!!!!
I think we should eliminate this from WYSIWYG editors, if there are no links, then there is no more IP infringment!!! and the world will be a better place to buy 20 bucks CDs!!!!
So contact your WYSIWYG HTML editor developer and ask him to remove that 'link' button from hell!!!
WTF am I doing replying to an AC at 5 A.M on a Friday night?
"By the letter of the law they may be correct in claiming a high ground, but morally, you are as guilty as someone who stands in front of a junior school with a list of crack houses and hand them out to the kids, then claims he was doing nothing wrong as he didn't posses the drugs."
Morally? Are you kidding?
Morally, what was HSBC bank doing funding a nation like Iraq to buy arms? Morally, now that the regime changed, should the people of Iraq still be forced to pay that debt back?
Now I know that some people might think that it's an irrelevant argument, but then so are morals.
Oddly Draconis
Too cynical to live, too stubborn to die.
Preface: I'm usually wrong, but like to give my opinion anyway. Agree, disagree at your leisure; the thrill for me is in the debate, not in the acceptance of my arguments by people who have lived a life other than my own. :)
:) I've most recently been voting Libertarian, but the smug-ideology-without-regard-for-practical-social- implementation aspect irks me. The fact of the matter is, the general population is not self-moderating, self-policing, or even self-bettering.
I realise this is off-topic, but I feel the need to vent anyway. I have never understood why it is illegal to do harm to yourself. After all, you own your body, is it as least once thing that isn't licensed to you (Does God have a EULA?), and so why shouldn't we be allowed to do whatever we want to it?
That's a good little Libertarian now.
(Disclaimer: If you're reading slashdot, you're probably not sheeple, but you know who I'm talking about. Visit WalMart and casually overhear about 75% of the conversations going on.) The sheeple need leadership, direction, and a sense of public morality to actually be able to handle some semblence of a "society." Our country, great as it is, is great because of the benevolence of our illuminati, and the respect the "working man" has for that benevolence. Also, in my little world, a heirarchy can sometimes be considered illuminati. For instance, Military/Police are a controlling piece of the system, but not through the actions of the foot soldiers; rather through the actions of their organizations.
Being under the influence of drugs may prompt you to cause harm to others. This, surely, can be solved in neater ways than banning drugs outright. Ban them in public places, but allow them at home.
Because drug-crazed lunatics are happy to stay at home and do their drugs when you tell them to? Next thing you know, you'll be telling me that criminals have started obeying gun control laws?
The overriding mandate for government and law should be (not saying it is, but rather SHOULD BE) caring for the welfare of the society at large. This is not a communist idea, this is a necessity for keeping the society alive and healthy. The debate generated on how exactly to best care for society is what should be going on in legislatures and judicial arenas across the globe. To your point, drugs and people using drugs are harmful to society, and should be moderated out. I'm all for including nicotene products, and possibly caffeine (heresy!) products in the list of harmful products. (After being a very heavy caffeine addict, and suffering a nasty few days of withdrawal, my eight weeks of clarity since have been most enlightening about what a stranglehold caffeine has on our society.)
OK, I think that just about sums up my rant for the day. Thanks for your time.
That's because the laws are written with the grand-fuzzy of 'intent' built into them. The problem isn't intent, the problem is that the laws are so vague that intent matters.
The brutal world is the one where my supposed intent might make me guilty. I have 'hackers tools' (A Codewarrior CD), I have 'weapons' (a model rocket engine and a hunting knife), I have 'drugs' (unidentified dietary supplements), I have 'pornography' (baby pictures of my sister), and depending on the DA's spin, I could be branded a social terrorist of the worst order.
Imagine a world where the only 'crime' is property crime. A social 'you break it, you bought it' system. Talk about bombs, drugs, money, or music all day long. Link to others' talks all day long. Hell, go ahead and make bombs and drugs all day long, just don't use them against others. The brutal world is one where information or ideas are punishable.
If this country still believes that it is preferable 'to let ten guilty men go free rather than imprison one innocent' then we cannot infer intent. We must judge the potential criminal only on their actions.
Oh, and linking isn't a crime, it's advertising.
...but you are party and complicit in assisting access to illegal materials.
Actually, according to the article, the links were to pages that had legal MP3s for download, i.e., not controlled by the music organization, and were authorized by the artists for download. Maybe that isn't the case, as the article doesn't interview any of the linked sites.
Also, by saying there are terrorists are operating out of Afghanistan, and showing someone a map to get there, does this mean you are as guilty as a recruiter for said terrorists? I mean, you are not actually one, but you are party and complicit in assisting access to them.
For those who describe their systems as 'boxen', do you order multiple 'boxen' of corn flakes also?
Not just the absolute physical torture that being born addicted causes...
I have never heard of a child being born with a chemical dependency to THC. Can you cite any sources that support this? Have studies been done? I'm not necessarily disagreeing with you. I'm just curious.
Realizing that drug using/selling is a voluntary act of trade like any other, there is only one possible argument (although government would never word it like this): You don't own your own body. Government owns your body.
The third possibility is that certain drugs, upon use, work to take away free will. That is to say, their addictive quality. Thus government interference with your body, while not usually good, is better than the direct chemical interference with your thought processes that many illegal drugs do.
Let me ask you: Do you believe that the government should have the power to ban certain items? Should I be able to go down to my local drug store and pick up some cyanide tablets, weapons-grade uranium, cocaine (in fun packets to pass out on Halloween), a fully automatic machine gun, and a kiddie porn mag?
Call me crazy, but I prefer the notion that a government, elected by the people, can outlaw and/or regulate certain things.
[PowerPoint] is a tool for capitalist presentation
Granted IANAL, but think about this... These big companies (DirectTV,RIAA,SCO,etc..) are using (and in my opinioin abusing) the civil courts to twist the law in their favor, right or wrong - they go after the small companies and individuals, who simply have (and very possibly innocent) ties (using/linking) to organizations that apparently are illegal. In reality, in seems to me that while abusing the law to get there way (and they are) - they are also setting precidant, to where "there" relationship, no matter how small or innocent, with some organization out there that infact in someway physicallys harms others, that they are also guilty of support and facilitating this. Just as these sites that link to the pirates sites, and 9 year olds downloading MP3's that didnt know any better. For example: They are going after sites, that are doing nothing more that linking (the relationship) to other sites that seem to be homes for evil pirates (and ofcourse terrorists). Well, they very much support (much more than a mere link in correlation) these numerous rap artists that talk/sing about killing others and cops - A creative and ballzy attorney out there could use the very same precidents that they them selves set, against them and practically put them out of business - IE: numerous wrongfull death suits...
To think that our relationship to our bodies is that of ownership is a massive oversimplification.
Perhaps, but abortion rights advocates have been using this argument with great success for quite some time, even when the abortions are at taxpayer expense. At least the argument is that women have the excusive right to choose what they can do with their bodies. Exclusive rights are akin to ownership IMHO. Whether or not an abortion can be considered harmful to the woman is a matter of heated debate, however.
Indeed, who gets to choose what equates harm. For many lighter things, most people would equate it to a pleasant experience. I have a pierced ear, should that have been illegal, since in most cases the basic concept of perforating one's body could be considered "damage" or "harm."
Hell... judging from past experience eating bean burritos with a few glasses of beer should be harmful... the aftereffects are much less pleasant than many other things
The real point should be that theres no way anyone can prevent someone else from hurting themself. I don't care how many billions or trillions of dollars you want to spend preventing people from doing drugs (which at the same time makes drug running *alot* more profitable), but until everyone is locked up in a padded room wearing a straight jacket, its just not going to happen.
Alot of things that money get spent on have more to do with feeling good about something than actually fixing a problem.
yeah, it's more like standing in front of a high school handing out information on how to xerox pages from a textbook.
Mmmm, hamburgers. Mmmm, apple sauce. Mmmm, torts.
</Homer>
Opinions on the Twiddler2 hand-held keyboard?
Certainly not when it causes the murder rate to skyrocket: Link
Now they're raiding houses? This guy's life is ruined because of they're overzealous attitude. They are going way too far. I swear from this day forward, I will never buy a music CD again, nor will I recommend any music CDs and will advise all my friends to do the same. Until I hear that sanity has returned to these Mofos, I'm going to exercise my right not to give them any money, unless that's against the law as well!!
Here's a good overview if you are interested: Link
The money spent on drug enforcement far outweighs the money that is (or would be) spent for medical services for illegal drug users. If drugs were legal, all of the money that is currently spent on enforcement could be used for medical treatment and still leave plenty for drug education. This does not even take into account the money that is spent on incarceration for drug dealers which would not be spent if drugs were legal. The "It costs society" argument is a fallacy.
Drugs are illegal simply due to the fact that a bunch of do-gooders believed that they had all of the answers, and that the unwashed masses must be told what to do. It was this same type of person that got the U.S. to pass Prohibition, and more recently made smokers into polluters, and gun manufactures into murderers.
And no, I also do not do drugs, and would not even if they were legal. I just believe in Freedom, something that most people in America have no real concept of, or have forgotten all about in an effort to remain more secure and have more money.
And how exactly is one supposed to steal, kill, or rape on an island by themselves?
(I'm not sure I really want an answer to that last one).
Surely this is like hosting a list of places you can buy illicit drugs. You do not actually possess said drugs, but you are party and complicit in assisting access to illegal materials.
On the other hand, if you think the fact that some drugs are deemed illicit by the government is itself immoral, then you are complicit if you don't act to undermine such immoralities.
Don't like free speech? Then consider a move to some other country who's governmental views are aligned more closely with yours.
The whole legal system around the world is dominated by money and the big money holders (i.e corporations) can just stamp on everyone else.
If an expensive (i.e better) lawyer is more likely to win a case, something is wrong. If you can use money to persuede politicians to implement your policies over other peoples then something is wrong. Both these statements seem to be true (anyone disagree?) and this isnt the sort of problem you say "oh thats the way it is, thats life to" its the sort of problem you say "OMG jesus F christ you mean its like that??? quick call CNN call the police! lock the doors" to, or the way there would be public out cry if some companys kids toy had sharp razor blades and aspestos in it. But no, even tho the entire system is totally screwed no-one seems to care, am i missing something?
This comment does not represent the views or opinions of the user.
You are mistaken. You wrongly assume that I was analyzing the argument in your post, when I was just lightly poking fun at you.
However, to please you, I will destroy the central part of your argument, which is the false analogy of crack and MP3s. Crack is an illegal substance that is documented to hurt the individual user, those around him, and the community. Mp3s are not illegal, and whether they hurt the individual user, those around him, and the community in general is an opinion and not one backed up by any real facts.
"Ahh," you say, "I'm not talking about just any Mp3s, but unathorized copies of MP3s." Unfortunately for you, your analogy breaks down further here. Possesion of crack is illegal. Possesion of an unauthorized MP3 is not illegal. Frankly, a better analogy would be comparing MP3 to stolen ice cream, but eben that is problematical.
Now for your supplementary argument that "There is no right to express the cheapest places to purchase crack in an attempt to sell the controlled substance - hence intent is important." Firstly, you are factually wrong; it is legal to express the cheapest place to purchase crack. There is nothing to prevent me from telling you, if asked, to go down to the village square as that's where all the crack stores are. Secondly, even if your interpretation of the law were correct, you have failed to make a logical connection as to just how intent is "hence important".
Basically, your argument is hyperbole. But to make you feel better, let me add some more ad hominem. Your hyperbolic argument is stupid, like you are. =)
It's not offtopic, dumbass. It's orthogonal.
This is the classic libertarian argument that everyone espouses, but no one seems to get that it doesn't hold any water. There is practically NOTHING you can do on this planet that doesn't affect those around you.
The problem is, you have to find a solution that isn't worse than the problem. Some feel that laws criminalizing drugs have created far worse problems for all of us than they have solved. If these problems are so well served by drug laws, why aren't the related problems caused by alcohol, tobacco and firearms similarly treated? You don't suppose it could be simply, because there are huge amoral and self-serving financial interests in maintaining the bizarre mosaic of inconsistent laws regarding such things?
yes but infringing copyright is NOT a crime.
in Australia (which we're talking about) a crime is covered by the Crimes Act
Copyright infringement is a civil NOT criminal matter and is covered by the Copyright Act.
'There is a Light that never goes out.'
The failure here is obvious. Person A takes car, dealer can't sell it to person B. Person A takes MP3, dealer can sell it to person B. Whether it's right or wrong, it's not proper to compare real life goods to intellectual property.
Virg
That's because the laws are written with the grand-fuzzy of 'intent' built into them. The problem isn't intent, the problem is that the laws are so vague that intent matters.
...we cannot infer intent. We must judge the potential criminal only on their actions.
"potential criminal" meaning one who is accused but not yet convicted? The problem is, intent really matters. If one is accused of killing another, should the punishment be the same
if the victim ran out in traffic on the freeway or
if the killer was drunk and crashed into the sleeping victim's bedroom or
if the killer chased down the victim until finally able to make the kill?
Of course not. Intent matters.
In this case however, no harm was done by providing a link. The harm, if any, was done by the parties providing and/or downloading copyrighted works without owning the copyright.
sdbI understand the flaw in that analogy, but consider that it is only in the ease of mass-production where "intellectual property" differs from "real life goods". The amount of mp3s able to be produced per year is, for comparisons sake, unlimited. The amount of cars able to be produced per year is still limited. Hypothetically, if it got to the point where it was possible to mass produce cars as easily as it is mp3s, cars would become an intellectual property of sorts, and I guess we would be sitting here arguing about the illegal copying of copyrighted cars. My analogy is only there to compare the morality of it, and so "whether it is right or wrong" is what I was trying to get at. Yes, it is hard to create a valid analogy in this situation, but regardless, I still think that just because one wouldn't ever buy something (whether it may be because he just can't afford it or for some other reason), does NOT mean that he should be allowed to have it anyway.
Also don't forget the increased crime rate from addicts stealing, robbing and murdering to get their next fix.
i think i will forget it, thank you, since we're talking about why it should be legal, and it would cost a _lot_ less with free-market competition... no-one ever killed for a cigarette.
We've secretly replaced Slashdot with new Folgers Crystals - let's see if it notices.
That would be the same as me saying: "You know, my website is hosted by the same hosting company as some completely unrelated site that may be holding some illegal MP3s, I'll turn myself in for... um... what exactly?"
You've gone to far in the analogy and it's fallen over.
Hmm, you've never heard of Cigarette smuggling? http://www.cnn.com/2002/LAW/05/23/cigarette.terror .trial/
Did you know that fires started by cigarettes are the leading cause of death by fire?
Heres some links for you proving that yes, people have been killed for a cigarette. (or at least commited major crimes)
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/story/75272p-69604 c.html
http://www.tobacco.org/news/123442.html
http://www.headliner.nl/headliner.php?c=uk&abbr=an anova&id=480
http://www.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,4057,70 80934%255E1702,00.html
If these problems are so well served by drug laws, why aren't the related problems caused by alcohol, tobacco and firearms similarly treated?
Whether or not is should be, alcohol isn't regulated like drugs because we tried that once (18th amendment) and it didn't work out (21st amendment). Tobacco is being schooled by the government, and I predict it will eventually be regulated like drugs are. And firearms aren't regulated like drugs because of the 2nd amendment and with it are loud special interest groups (NRA). I guess no one takes the druggie special interest groups very seriously otherwise we wouldn't be having a very different discussion.
I certainly agree with you that just because things are the way they are, doesn't mean that they are the way they are supposed to be. But I don't think for one second that the original poster or really anyone who argues that "if I'm doing it to myself it doesn't affect anyone else" has got a leg to stand on. It has become such a popular argument, and people have heard it so often, that they seem to just blindly accept that it's a valid point when really it's not. Which, effectively, was what I was trying to convey in my previous post - nothing you do is without consequence to someone else. It just doesn't work that way.
yeah mine too, wtf? is my isp blocking the site?
is the site down or forced off the net by linking the domain to 192.168.100.1?
I don't want to claim that music copyright infringement is moral but, you can hardly claim that these are similar when the effects of the two "crimes" are poles apart!
The latter might reduce the income of an otherwise quite rich bunch of people but does relatively little damage to the perpetrator.
The former, OTOH, tends to make the perpetrators quite rich at the expense of generally completely screwing up the lives of others.
wait.....wich one is the RIAA and which is the drug dealer??
the page is slashdotted apparently, the google cache of www.mp3s4free.net dosn't quite work, but the cache of one of the sub pages shows what the site was like
A J: www.mp3s4free.net/terms.shtml+%22mp3s4free.net%22& hl=en&start=2&ie=UTF-8
http://216.239.37.104/search?q=cache:9yBXW4xY7E
is a link.
Well, I for one am not planning to be a breeder...
Maybe drugs _should_ be illegal, but only to people with kids.... or better yet, lets just not let fuckups breed....
I guess no one takes the druggie special interest groups very seriously otherwise we wouldn't be having a very different discussion.
We do listen to the druggie special interest group. The pharmaceudical industry couldn't charge $20 for an aspirin if you could just grow a painkiller in your backyard.
You are mistaken. You wrongly assume that I was analyzing the argument in your post, when I was just lightly poking fun at you.
I understood this, it was just you were the first to reply and it was exceedingly stupid.
However, to please you, I will destroy the central part of your argument, which is the false analogy of crack and MP3s. Crack is an illegal substance that is documented to hurt the individual user, those around him, and the community. Mp3s are not illegal, and whether they hurt the individual user, those around him, and the community in general is an opinion and not one backed up by any real facts.
"Ahh," you say, "I'm not talking about just any Mp3s, but unathorized copies of MP3s." Unfortunately for you, your analogy breaks down further here. Possesion of crack is illegal. Possesion of an unauthorized MP3 is not illegal. Frankly, a better analogy would be comparing MP3 to stolen ice cream, but eben that is problematical.
Except that possesion of a stolen item (ice cream not excluded) is illegal, in fact it is criminally illegal. Copyright violation isn't criminally illegal, but is civilly.
Lets put it this way, would you go and tell the RIAA "Hey, i'm and live at and I have MP3's from music I never payed for!" No, you wouldn't, because the RIAA has the authority, should they choose, to sue you for comyright infringement and get punative damages from you - thus possesion is illegal. Fair use, which isn't written in law but is genereally accepted, doesn't cover downloading MP3's from someone else or copying from a friend.
Telling someone to go do something illegal isn't legal, telling someone how to do something illegal is legal. Though there is a fine line between the two and it is mostly up to the judge or jury to decide which you are doing. An add agency can't run a billboard for the cheapest crack cocaine in town at 1313 mockingbird lane, and neither can you.
Now for your supplementary argument that "There is no right to express the cheapest places to purchase crack in an attempt to sell the controlled substance - hence intent is important." Firstly, you are factually wrong; it is legal to express the cheapest place to purchase crack.
If your intent is to sell me crack by doing that then it is illegal, people have been arrested for such a thing here. I do not know if it is a felony or misdemeanor (I would assume the latter).
This is just like the cases a few years back where someone followed a books instructions on how to make silencers, kill people, and hide evidence. The book makers were not found criminally guilty. several were found civilly guilty and forced to pay restitution because it was obvious to the jury that the intent of the book was how to kill people, and thus illegal. The other books listed the same info but in an "informative" way, such as the quote you said above about purchasing crack, and thus were not liable - and therefore legal.
------- Sorry about the spelling, I suffer from two problems. Dyslexia makes it difficult to spell well, lazy makes it
Windows XP shows:
C:\>ping
Usage: ping [-t] [-a] [-n count] [-l size] [-f] [-i TTL] [-v TOS]
[-r count] [-s count] [[-j host-list] | [-k host-list]]
[-w timeout] target_name
Options:
-t Ping the specified host until stopped.
To see statistics and continue - type Control-Break;
To stop - type Control-C.
-a Resolve addresses to hostnames.
-n count Number of echo requests to send.
-l size Send buffer size.
-f Set Don't Fragment flag in packet.
-i TTL Time To Live.
-v TOS Type Of Service.
-r count Record route for count hops.
-s count Timestamp for count hops.
-j host-list Loose source route along host-list.
-k host-list Strict source route along host-list.
-w timeout Timeout in milliseconds to wait for each reply.
C:\>
I suppose your flood ping capability is on Linux. Too bad. Anyone have a Windows program that would do the same?
No, the RIAA owns the copyrights and can distribute thier content in any way they wish.
Nor would the situation you described be them intentionally placing links on thier website for the express purpose of you downloading pirated music.
------- Sorry about the spelling, I suffer from two problems. Dyslexia makes it difficult to spell well, lazy makes it
Not so.
I have heard of cigarette smuggling, but that is nothing like robbing a bank/store/someone on the street to get money for your next fix.
the "leading cause of death by fire" is irrelevant... there is a difference between being killed BY a cigarette, and _killing_ FOR one.
We've secretly replaced Slashdot with new Folgers Crystals - let's see if it notices.
the exception that proves the rule... it's not _common_ for that to happen, and it's shocking when it does. there's no reason the same wouldn't be true of other drugs, if they were legal. even people who were hopelessly addicted to drugs and couldn't afford to finance their habit, would, if they were legal, be more likely to shoplift them from the local 7-11 than to steal/kill/etc for money to buy it with... a convenience store is a lot less likely to put you in the bottom of the east river with cement shoes (or, more likely, unceremoniously put a pound or so of lead in you) than an illegal drug dealer
We've secretly replaced Slashdot with new Folgers Crystals - let's see if it notices.
If the Agents for the Music Industury raid my office being that they are NOT law enforcement officers can I shoot them for tresspassing?
Diplomacy is the art of saying "Nice doggie" until you can find a rock. Will Rogers
I guess I should have added that.