Slashdot Mirror
BPI Sue AllOfMp3 In British Courts
Ckwop writes "AllOfMp3 is getting sued by the British Phonographic Industry. From the article:
"We have maintained all along that this site is illegal and that the operator of the site is breaking UK law by making sound recordings available to UK-based customers without the permission of copyright owners. Now we will have the opportunity to demonstrate in the UK courts the illegality of this site."
" The issue of course will be whether any injunction will be enforceable or not.
... and win, are unable to enforce the verdict and therefore unable to retrieve any of the loss revenue.
I wonder who will pay the High Court costs of the whole affair. Artists? Perhaps an increase in fees. Consumers? Without a doubt. Shareholders? Nope.
ZOMGWTFPWNtKKTHNXBIBI!!!ONE!111!!!
If Russian Courts can't close a russian website how does the BPI expect a British court to manage any better ?
I have to say that AllOfMP3 is doing something right, and it shouldn't be ignored by the music industry.
I've spent about $200 since discovering the site a few months back. That's particularly interesting given that I've probably spent a total of $200 on music *period* in the last five years. I'm now entirely a downloader when it comes to music, and I do not listen, download or accept DRM'ed music or music that's under 320k quality.
I'm sure I'm not alone. Rather than shutting down AllOfMP3, the industry might want to pay attention to the hundreds of thousands of people who are actually spending on music and haven't done so in years.
------ The best brain training is now totally free : )
Who else read the summary as "Pornographic Industry" rather than Phonographic?
I think I've been on the Internet for far too long...
I may make you feel, but I can't make you think.
that'll teach those offshore pirates!
some of these parochial old twits should really get out of the club more often, look around, and see the hansom cabs have been replaced by buses.
if this is supposed to be a new economy, how come they still want my old fashioned money?
Last time Allofmp3.com went offline for a few days, the traffic surged afterwards as more people were made aware of its existence and joined in on the fun.
If they weren't able to take down PirateBay **in the EU**, what chance have they got to take down Allofmp3 in Russia?
Artificial intelligence is no match for natural stupidity
Well, of course they're suing. The global music industry would like to be able to fix prices all over the world, and it's very hard to do so when cheap alternatives like AllOfMP3 are available. Whether or not they actually have a case is irrelevant -- they have the cash necessary to pursue the suit, and will do so in order to maintain shareholder interest and control of the market.
~ C.
So you can be sued for breaking licensing laws in the countries where consumers are?
This is disturbing, because the way the internet works is that its like a load of tubes (not trucks) and some of these connect different countries. So you could be sued for publishing something on the internet if its illegal in any country where it can be read, in theory.
If we can put a man on the moon, why can't we shoot people for Apollo-related non-sequiturs?
Of course, people don't get upset about this broad and absurd generalization, but they get upset when you say have no marketable skills.
I'm a musician, and also an IT professional. This debunks your general claim.
Buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo!
"Stop! Or I shall say 'stop' again!"
Weaselmancer
rediculous.
There are lots of issues with this: Firstly, the UK High Court has no jurisdiction in Russia (unless you're British and then only for some crimes). Russian companys have no legal status in the UK. You can't sue them and they can't be prosecuted in the UK. I think what they might be doing is sueing the operator of a Russian site in the UK for damages for operating in the UK without a legal licence.
Who ordered that?
Don't knock it... it was #1 for 90 years running. Thats a little stronger than the Minidisk...
If a nation expects to be ignorant and free, in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be.-TJ
Gah. Slashdot ate my markup. I meant to say "But they get up set when you say [insert racial slur here] have no marketable skills."
Buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo!
If someone one day made computer programming completely unprofitable (I'm looking at you, Stallman), at least a handful of us programmers would be still able to manage a living doing something else.
Computer programming unprofitable? Ehm, I have some news for you: programming is not restricted to end-user software. There is a lot of money to be made from custom applications within companies. You, know, the kind that banks, insurance companies, manufacturing plants use. I dare you to find open source solutions for banking specific needs, or for controlling industry robots in manufacturing processes. I'm not saying it can't be done, but it's highly unlikely that it will happen. Consumer-grade software is *small* in comparison to that.
Besides, you didn't listen to Mr Stallman: the software itself can be sold (just give the source) and your revenue stream comes from support and services. A great example is a simple webserver: you can get the software at no cost, but unless there is a competent admin behind it, your server isn't worth squat because it probably will cease to work in no-time.
The only risk I see for programmers is the "age problem". I turn 30 this year, and I'm looking for a job. I've already been told that I was too old for a certain number of jobs. The "programmer" is percieved as a "young-guy-just-from-college-with-twenty-years-of- experience" (go figure) Perhaps, I should listen to Stallman and start my own IT services company.
Ahhh...the great dumpster continuum. Many a free computer will be found there. -- sowth (748135)
The question that I have always had is this: if it is legal, and even desirable (as certain parties would argue) for consumers of labor (i.e. employers) to shop around the world for the cheapeast source of labor, taking full advantage of local conditions and legal structures, why should it be illegal for me, a consumer of music, to shop around the world for the cheapest source of music?
And please spare me any arguments centering on making sure that artists are compensated for their work. That isn't what the recording labels are about, and the argument is particularly spurious when you consider the types of artists that are represented on allofmp3.com. Good luck trying to find a small or independent musician on there.
These people basically pay no royalities at all to the muscians, and they give you a false feeling of buying legitimate stuff. I don't think this is nice at all, sure the the music industry is crooked, but these guys really are pirates for profit. They make money by selling stuff they have no right to sell.
Allofmp3 are money hungry low lifes.
I guess the British record industry is desperate for some positive publicity and hopes that calling Allofmp3 "illegal" in court will get people -- who just want to buy affordable DRM-free music -- to feel some sympathy for the BPI's hardworking lawyers. It should be obvious any injunction obtained would be unenforceable. How are they even going to get Allofmp3 to show up? If someone in Britain tried to sue me, I'd just ignore it like the hot air it was.
He who lights his taper at mine, receives light without darkening me.
You see, here's the problem: On the internet, you can claim to be anything at all. You claim to be a musician, but I've never heard of you. Never heard of Thalagyrt And His Five Sisters. I've never even heard of Thalagyrt The IT Professional. Your claiming to be either a musician or an IT professional (what does that term mean?) makes no difference at all to my argument.
To paraphrase Cuba Gooding Jr, show me the evidence.
Like program? In total jobs I'd say the majority of programming is in customized inhouse apps, which will never go away. Atleast untill the computer can program itself. Computer... I'd like a database application that tells me my profits for the end of year BEFORE the year even starts. I'm sorry Dave, I can't do that, I must kill you now.
No, he's using British grammar. In the UK, a company/organization is not singular but plural. "BPI sue" is exactly how they would say it, even though it sounds completely wrong to US ears (or looks wrong to their eyes).
So you take comfort in the fact that your job can't be automated? Do you think that is a safe assumption to make? Do you see your profession as one that is bulletproof to any future developments?
My point was that there are musicians out there who have marketable skills. I'm a network engineer at University of Miami. I work in their telecommunications department. I play guitar, keys, and piano, and have for many years. There ARE musicians who have marketable skills. By the way, you're an arrogant asshole. Just thought I'd throw that out there.
Buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo!
As Napster and AllOfMp3 have proven, there is a demand for music produced by the no-talent barn owl screechers. Clearly people WANT what AllOfMp3 is selling - the question is if this is legal or ethical. After all, plenty of folks want Rolex watches, but most of us know that a Rolex sold out of the back of a truck is probably stolen or fake.
I do think that the global music industry needs to look at pricing and distribution and reasses their approach. If they had embraced digital distribution early, instead of rejecting it, my guess is that shops like AllOfMp3 would have never opened.
The allofmp3.com business model is one of the best that I have seen for Online music, Lets look at what the consumer gets
- The choice of bitrate.
- The choice of quality (vbr/etc)
- A choice of albums which are simply not available on other sites like itunes.
- Reliable service, friendly staff
- Often has new albums well before other music stores have them.
- VERY competitive pricing.
- NO DRM.
Now taking into account that they apparently are not paying enough for the rights to the music or whatever it may well be, the business model works, even if I had to pay 20cents for each song or 40cents US for each song I would still go with Allofmp3.com because they offer a service to the consumer that works.I can download the music and play it where I want when I want. So here the recording companies are in a sticky spot, they know that the consumers want that model and they are trying to restrict it as much as possible. I believe in paying for music and I believe that the artists should get paid for the music but there comes a point in time when your getting ripped off, and that is how the record companies and recording industry has been for such a long time and now they are wondering why there has been such a revolt.... Here Warner is offering 2.5bn for EMI and visa versa yet will that REALLY benefit the musicians, the end user.. Hell no its only going to make share holders richer which is going to screw me, and you and whoever else listens to music.
Again, this applies equally well to the two of them. The record labels in North America claim that they have legally valid contracts that give them the right to make a profit off of the creations of certain artists. I question the morality of what they are doing, but yes it's legal in the country they operate in.
AllOfMP3 claim that they have the legal right to make a profit off of the creations of certain artists, in compliance with Russian copyright law. You question the morality of what they are doing, but yes it's legal in the country they operate in.
That's exactly what I'm wondering, and I don't think I want a precedent saying that, yup, if in East Bumfuckistan it's illegal to publish something, you can be extradited to East Bumfuckistan if you published it in the UK.
I mean, seriously, almost every dictatorship somewhere has some things that are forbidden to publish or to even read.
E.g., China doesn't like anything that contradicts its propaganda. I don't just mean anti-communist stuff, but for example they forbade the game Hearts Of Iron 2 because it presented Manchuria as a separate puppet-state of Japan in 1936. Which is historically accurate, ffs: Japan had occupied a bunch of Chinese territory, called it "Manchuria" and installed a puppet emperor there that was little more than a figurehead with no power whatsoever. But someone in China decided that it's illegal to even mention China being, or ever having been, anything else than one unified state.
So could now the developpers be tried and imprisoned in China for publishing something like that in Sweden? I'm sure there's a lot of stuff on their site (maps, info, game patches containing those lists of countries and provinces) that can be accessed over the Internet from China. Does that mean that suddenly a site in Sweden has to abide by China's laws?
What about posts on that topic? Between Europa Universalis 1 and 2, Victoria, and Hearts Of Iron 1 and 2, there are a lot of talks about historical and ahistorical scenarios on Paradox's boards involving China. E.g., right this morning there was a post in the "Hearts Of Iron 2: Doomsday" forum where someone posted a screenshot of the game saying Mao Zhedong died in battle, somewhere in the 40's. (In HOI2 any general can be killed in combat, so if you use one in a lot of battle, yeah, something like that can happen.) And some tomfoolery ensued, with jokes about the party just hiding his death from the people, and similar. I'm sure some PRC party official can take offense at that idea, especially if taken out of context by someone who's never actually played the game. So can they now enforce the swift Chinese justice upon some posters from all over Europe and the USA, just because that info can be accessed from China?
E.g., in a couple of Islamist countries you can be tried and sentenced to death (yes, literally) just for saying that you don't believe in the official religion. Can they now sue everyone who's proclaimed themselves a Christian or atheist on Slashdot? Just because that info is available over the internet from their country? Oooer.
I don't think I want to see that kind of a precedent established.
A polar bear is a cartesian bear after a coordinate transform.
Which speaks volumes about the quality of said server software.
You seem to assume that it's the same as downloading it from a P2P network, but it's an entirely different matter. Here, Russian law says specifically that you do not need any kind of agreement with the rights holder to offer their music for sale, as long as you pay money to a society like ROMS. Now, the question is : does ROMS give the money back to the artists? I've read somewhere that they were ready to give the amount they are required to to the artists, but the big lobbying groups like RIAA tell the artists not to accept any money, lest they implicitely recognize that ROMS is a legitimate organization. It has nothing to do with "conscience", because copyright is mostly a recent, western concept. Therefore, whether you are a Christian, a Jew, a Muslim or an atheist, there is nothing intrinsically wrong with listening to music you have bought from allofmp3.com (remember that even 400 years ago, there was no such thing as copyright and most creators were GLAD you could get your hands on their works). What the RIAA is trying to make us believe is that, if artists were paid only for concerts or even for a 5-year period following the release of their CDs, nobody would want to be an artists anymore. Guess what : I'd take Mozart and Beethoven (who could not make any money on CD sales since there were not any) over any of the contemporary cookie-cutter pop "stars". So, basically, nobody should have qualms about downloading things from allofmp3.com, unless it is illegal to do so in their country (which it isn't : consider this analogy : if I buy legitimate CDs in Russia for $3 and take them back to the US, can the US distributor sue me because I did not buy my music from them? Of course not. If it's legal and legitimate in the country where you purchased it, and there is nothing illegal with the material in itself (for example, child porn is illegal in itself, and so is counterfeit software), you should be in the clear. Remember : in Russia, buying from Allofmp3.com is exactly the same as buying from a regular store, and they do everything that are required to by law.
I don't discount that people want recorded screeching of barn owls. The question is whether it is profitable anymore to be in that business. I don't think either of us disagree with that. (Obviously it is still profitable, but maybe not as lucrative as it once was.)
However, as is the seminal problem with digital distribution, there is only so far you can allow distribution before you lose control of the data you are distributing. As has been shown time and again, IP protection tools will be broken. Whether it's people Xeroxing their LSL3 instruction booklets or ripping audio through the analog hole, there is always some point of failure which will be exploited to wrest distribution control away from the original distributors.
Would having embraced the digital distribution format helped the recording industry's current position? Personally, I doubt it. They'd just be where they are now, fighting to gain back control of the content which was illegally (under current laws) taken from them at the outset.
The BPI is a collection of people, not a single person. Bob sues allofmp3.com, BPI sue allofmp3.com.
I use a key to open my front door. That makes me a locksmith! You can't argue with that. I've been using keys to open doors for many years.
BTW, how do you look in a mini-skirt?
You must be new here... On Earth.
It also raises awareness of the alternatives. I would say most non-geeks don't know AllOfMP3 even exists. They think iTMS is the only way to buy music online. When they realize there is something else, they may be interested.
Consider also what will happen if the case goes the other way. If it is determined that what they are doing is not illegal (even if it turns out that the ruling is simply "this is not a matter that can be decided in UK court because it's external to the UK"), then the increased visibility would mean that people would be aware of an alternative that has been legally verified to NOT BE ILLEGAL.
I think this lawsuit is a risky stunt in any case.
Of course you mean, "The BPI are a collection of people".
The "your stealing from the artist" argument is a red herring. Unless your a mega-star, you don't get crap from record sales anyway, and from recent articles, we can conclude that they get even less from legal downloads. Often the artist does not even own the recording. So in that case it is a little like asking how much of that cheeseburger sold down at the dinner goes to the guy flipping burgers at McDonalds.
I'm not saying that such a thing exists, but computers and software do require maintenance, like pretty much everything in this world. If you build a house and do not keep it maintained, it will be worth nothing within a decade. Buy a car and never do an oil change or change the brake pads, and you have a wreck on wheels within three years
Nothing we humans build is perfect and stays unharmed by the teeth of time.
Ahhh...the great dumpster continuum. Many a free computer will be found there. -- sowth (748135)
No, it doesn't. You could have the best hammer in the world but if you haven't organised yourself a regular stream of high quality nails and sorted out how you are going to position the wood and ensure the nails end up in the right position to fulfil whatever purpose it is you have in mind then a hammer is not going to be much use to you !.
JC Penney is being sued by the Islamic Purity Party for serving web pages to Burkastan of women who are not completely covered.
I think the freedom that was the web is going to be shut down before long and we are going to have national firewalls that only "whitelisted" sites can get through.
She was like chocolate when she drank... semi-sweet at first and then increasingly bitter.
Dude, you'd make a perfect me.
The company is not a person, it is AN entity. I'm with the Americans on this issue, "the company are" really grates.
Unless you're willing to accept that copyright violation is the exact same thing as shoplifting a CD from a store, I call bullshit on that analogy. If the CD is really a "legitimate CD", it was physically produced by someone that had the right to produce it, and sold for a price set by that person. As long as it was legitimately acquired by the person selling it, there's no reason they can't sell it for whatever price they want to anywhere in the world they want to.
It's the act of making new copies and distributing them that violates copyright law, not the act of selling a legitimately-produced copy.
Don't blame me; I'm never given mod points.
My concience doesn't bother me one bit when I'm getting copies of any music over 28 years old.
In fact, it bothers me a lot whenever I have to pay for a song which is 50 years old and the original artists are all dead. I know all I am doing is putting money in the hands of a corporation which is trying to destroy the public domain. So my concience bothers me a lot when I have to do that. So much so that I havn't done it for a long time now.
She was like chocolate when she drank... semi-sweet at first and then increasingly bitter.
It's the typical European arrogance.
There's something in the European attitude today that makes them think that they can control the world by passing laws and making "judgements". It probably stems from having failed to gain complete world domination through 500 years of inflicting their rule on any country they could sail to.
The Geneva Conventions forbid a country from being subject to any law or treaty it has not passed. Therefore, the UK has begun an illegal court procedure against a Russian firm. We should protest and break shop windows!
Nope, because I'm not a programmer, more of a network/database consultant. Either way people who are good at logic and math will always be in demand (of course I can always learn a new trade, spent many years working as a locksmith with my dad, hey if I can't earn money atleast I can steal it :)
My turnips listen for the soft cry of your love
I once did a rough calculation on the true marginal cost of distributing music online. It was something like 0.3 cents a tune -- and this was with a woefully inefficient, viz. my laptop. About a third of the cost was power, and half the power cost is my laptop display, which would be unnecessary with a similar but headless setup.
So at 10 cents a track, the gross profit margin would be 'round 95 percent.
My turnips listen for the soft cry of your love
Interesting, eh? Find the whole story.. the Indian gvt. was trying to use this guy as a scapegoat. The US didn't play along. Everyone dealing with day-to-day operations of the plant was a local. Modding this parent up is just asking for a war of words. Let the coward make his comment, but don't reward him for it.
If I understand Dirac correctly, his meaning is this: there is no God, and Dirac is his Prophet. -Pauli
Someone with time on hisher hands build something funny there...
My turnips listen for the soft cry of your love
True...Napster went legal and AllOfPm3 should do the same. I would pay double to get the same service. I got to hear about AllOfMp3 from a text to my new Orange mobile phone...so thinking it must be okay. The more I read on the internet the more confused I got. It's a fantastic service..it would be a shame if it wasn't taken to the next level. ITunes and the like ,who legally line their own pockets, take heed...the future rests with those who are willing to listen to demand.. Move with the times or become extinct.
I want to download legallymake it worth my while
Yes, but doesn't your conscience bother you at all?
Get your own free personal location tracker
Hey, I suppose I should provide the link, shouldn't I?
http://www.jdray.com/Daviews/courtney.html
no text
My turnips listen for the soft cry of your love
I guess if this case were won, then it would imply that it should be possible to prosecute someone under Islamic law for something wearing 'too revealing' clothing, and making an image available to someone in say Afghanistan. It would be a nonsense if this case were decided in favour of the Record Industry Mafia.
If the RIAA were really serious, they should be suing ROMS first, to get the money that AllofMP3 and presumably other organisations are paying which isn't being paid to the artists.
Phil
"We have maintained all along that this site is illegal"
So.... instead of bringing criminal charges against the site, they sue instead.
People only sue instead, if they're greedy.
"No problem. I have the capacity to do infinite work so long as you don't mind that my quality approaches zero."-Dilbert
...is how much they're charging. You say you'd still go with AllOfMP3 even if it cost 20 or 40 cents per track. Well, what if it cost 99 cents? What if the content owners felt that the losses they've internally calculated - no matter how right or wrong they actually are, or you think they are - means that they'd only sell DRMless music for $1.50 or $2 a track? Would you still go to it then?
That's the problem: AllOfMP3 is arbitrarily deciding prices so that it's profitable TO THEM, and using the questionable legality of a radio broadcasting model to do it. Whether that is a loophole or not beside the point, they're not the ones who get to decide what prices are. Their only costs are that of buying CDs, and running a web site. What about all of the costs involved on the production side of the music? What about the artist's rights? The label's rights? What about the basic right to ask for the compensation you choose for a service or product you provide? What about the massive costs associated with some of the "popular" artists on AllOfMP3.com. Whether you AGREE with those costs or not is irrelevant: they're there, and that artist is popular. Call it brainwashing the public if you will, but still, someone else doesn't have the right to decide that album should be sold for $1.42.
This isn't about "failing business models". I mean, you're talking about it like someone has found a way to "appropriate" (I won't say steal because of the implications for something that can be duplicated with no effort) new automobiles, and sells them for 1/10 or 1/20 of what the automaker sells them for, and then talking about it how it's such a great "business model". Have you ever considered that even with electronic sales at $1.40/album, it may not be enough to sustain their "business model"? You might then say, good riddance - new artists will come, etc etc etc. Except for the fact that people have made agreements in good faith, protected by longstanding societal frameworks that allow for the protections of these entities' (whether they may be artists, artists' agents, record labels, etc.) rights.
Further, and again, I realize this is complicated by the fact you can duplicate it with essentially no effort, why should the owner of said content not be able to sell it when, how, and for how much, they choose? Why is it up to a web site in Russia? Or to you? What, if ANY, rights do the owners have? Imagine the "owner" being able to be anything from Time Warner to an individual independent artist. Is people "stealing" your stuff just the cost of doing business? Maybe even a good thing for publicity?
This entire discussion is jaded and poisoned by the hatred of corporations, governments, copyright, and so on. I discussed some of the other issues here. But one thing's consistent: no one wants to acknowledge the owner's rights, because in their mind, the rights are illegitimate. They can't seem to piece together that from an individual artist, there might be a lot more people involved as they grow. Perhaps a group of people that provides a service or product, known as a "company". In this context, maybe a "record company". There might be a "contract" between said artist and company. There might be "advertising". It might be too big for him to burn CDs in his basement. There might be "production" and "distribution". Some of these companies may even have agreements with other companies that sell things. There might even be legal frameworks that protect all of these agreements and the ownership of original work.
The problem is, no one sees any gray areas. They just think that the big trade groups and labels are wrong morally, trumpet about things like "making shareholders richer", and then go to a Russian web site to download the CD of that very artist for one fifteenth of what it's sold for in the US, with zero (or extremely minute amounts designed for radio licensing, which, ironically, is designed to get people to BUY the content, not to be th
An outdated name for an outdated organsisation with an outdated business model.
It seems to fit their policy quite well if you ask me.
Better still is the Irish Recording Assosiation. The IRA!
I doubt that anyone thinks such a lawsuit would be successful. However it might accomplish one important thing. It might raise awareness that what allofmp3 is doing is tantamount to piracy. It might stop people with conscience from using the site
That argument presumes that the specifics of copyright law in the UK are "moral" and the law in Russia is "immoral". There is nothing that differentiates their morality other than your opinion on a rather subtle nuance in the philosophy of "intellectual property".
If a job's not worth doing, it's not worth doing right.
my morality is simple. If people work to create something, and you want it. you pay for it.
Thats not what allofmp3 are doing. the artists dont get a dime.
You can argue about law all you like. Thats not morally right.
DRM-free indie games for the PC and Mac: Positech Games
Do you make keys? No. I record music. There's a difference.
For you: http://www.penny-arcade.com/comic/2004/03/19 - The Greater Internet Fuckwad Theory.
You get no more replies from me as you are clearly incapable of any intelligent conversation. I don't have time for idiots like yourself, so good luck getting somewhere in life. I bet if you met me in person you wouldn't say shit like that to my face.
Buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo!
Read a dictionary.
A locksmith is someone who makes/repairs locks, not someone who can use a key.
Oh, and what the AC said too. Grow up.
"It does not do to leave a live dragon out of your calculations, if you live near him." - Tolkien
Let's try a more apropriate comparison, because that comparison turns the whole chain of responsibility on its head. It wasn't some UK citizens who got mugged across the borders, but it was they who decided to reach across the border (even if through the Internet) and buy stuff from AllOfMP3.
So let's compare it to, I don't know, gambling. Let's say you're from a country or US state that forbids gambling, so you hop in a plane to Las Vegas and gamble your pants off. Does the casino have to comply with your state's laws, or is it enough that it's legal in Las Vegas? Most people would say it's the latter.
Or let's compare it to buying marijuana. In the US and UK and most of the world it's illegal, but let's say in Elbonia it's perfectly legal and can spend a week there higher than a kite. Sky high. (And I'm taking Elbonia as an example just to not get bogged into discussing the legal subtleties and limits of Holland, which is a RL example of a country where it's legal to buy and smoke pot.) So let's say that Johnny Dope hops on a plane and goes there and does just that: buys himself some pot, from a cafe that's perfectly legal under the local laws. Does the cafe have to comply with the USA or UK laws, or is it enough that it complies with the laws of the country it's in? I think it's pretty clearly the latter.
Or let's say you go to Russia and buy a CD-R with pirated music from a shop. (I don't know the subtleties of Russian law, but just for the sake of the example, let's assume it were legal.) Does that shop have to comply with the laws of _your_ country, or is it enough if it's legal under Russian law? I'd say it's pretty clearly the latter.
It doesn't matter if the shop/cafe/casino owner knew you're a foreigner, and it's not their job to ask for your pass and say "nope, in _your_ country this is illegal." In their own country it isn't. That's all that matters.
Basically I find sorta stupid the notion that if a site is accessible from the UK or China or Iran, then it must comply with laws of UK, China _and_ Iran.
AllOfMP3 didn't send someone to the UK to sell music. They set their (web-based) shop in Russia, and only have to comply with Russian law. Just because the Internet is linked everywhere doesn't make the shop exist simultaneously all over the world. It still exists just in Russia. If Johnny Pirate goes to AllOfMP3 to buy his pirated music, then it's Johnny Pirate who decided to go to a Russian shop, in Russia. Yeah, the internet makes that trip a lot easier than physically going there, but, nevertheless, it's Johnny who visited a (virtual) piece of Russia, not the Russians who came to his home.
And at any rate, the decision and responsibility lie squarely with Johnny. He wasn't just a helpless victim shot across the border. (Or hit by a CD packed with MP3's thrown across the border.) It was he who decided to go buy it.
A polar bear is a cartesian bear after a coordinate transform.
Actually, according to intenational copyright conventions, while copyright is convention-wide, _exhaustion_ (which is what provides resale rights, for instance) only applies to the country it occurs in (though exhaustion in any EU country applies to all of them).
So it is a violation of copyright to buy something in one country and import it to another without permission of the copyright holder. This doesn't hold in the US (such a case has been to the Supreme Court), but that just means the copyright interests in the US will need to purchase a few more laws.
They'll get the site declared illegal then british customers who buy from them. 'Simply' get a court order forcing ISPs to hand over details about who've been getting lots of data from allofmp3 and sue random people who've been using it.
I'd love to see AllOfMP3 raise their prices a little bit, and start sending money to the artists. I mean literally, to the artists. Look up addresses and cut checks. This serves two purposes:
1. The artists get compensated for their work, and the morality of the situation is improved a bit.
2. The artists themselves might begin to see what kind of a crooked deal they've got with the RIAA and maybe it would make them think twice about signing more contracts.
And if the artists revolt, what's the RIAA got left to sell?
Nobody seems to have mentioned the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 yet. IANAL, but I saw one on TV explaining how this act related to dialler fraud - essentially, if you have money that's come from criminal activity, you can't do anything with it. The claim there was that under this act, people can't be billed for calls made by this fraud.
If we apply the same logic to allofmp3, it seems that once the site is ruled illegal, then processing card payments for the site will also be by default illegal. So, they don't need to shut it down - the site won't do you much good if you can't pay them.
I'm scared of numbers that can't be written as a fraction. It's an irrational fear.
If we were arguing about grammar, I'd put it through the spell checker.
If I was posting on several of the other boards I'm active on, it would be spell checked by the editor.
If I was posting every other board I'm active on, I could edit the post to correct errors.
But this is slashdot, so my conscience isn't bothered a bit by spelling errors, typos, and other glitches.
She was like chocolate when she drank... semi-sweet at first and then increasingly bitter.
And people wonder why I didn't use their website. Russia is wanting to get into the WTO, and if means cracking down on piracy rings such as allofmp3, simply for apperances, then they will - all I have to say, pray that they don't come after those who purchase music off them.
When I talked about concerns regarding allofmp3, I was shunned off as an MPIAA supporter, my karma went down into the shitter - but is it really worth the risk given the number 'gray' websites which could, at a later date, deemed to be illega..
I don't know about you, but I prefer good old fashioned cds; atleast then you know what you're purchasing.
I wrote a reply, but I decided against posting it.
Get your own free personal location tracker
Exactly right. It seems the only succesful weapon they actually have is fear. Instead of pursuing a change to their moral (i.e. pirating is theft), which is obviously a very hard task, they opt for the much easier solution: we know what you're doing online.
When you underpay your workers, or overcharge your customers, they will, rightly or wrongly, steal from you if they can get away with it. Fact of life. What we have here is looters mentality. I can't afford all that I want, and I don't understand why that should mean I can't have it.
Ways to stop it: stop people from getting away with it. Difficult if you're got a small bunch of employees who can sneak stuff out from under your nose, but with millions of music downloaders all over the world? You're not gonna make a dent on it, whatever you do. You've gotta stop making people want to steal. Rightly or wrongly, that's what you gotta do.
The revolution will not be televised... but it will have a page on Wikipedia
Do we know that the ROMS aren't paying their dues? I'm betting that they are. As lawsuit-happy as the RIAA and their ilk happen to be, if the ROMS didn't uphold their legal end of the bargain these guys would be all over them. But as of today - they aren't.
Could the lack of a lawsuit imply that what they are doing is legal - and the RIAA knows that?
Weaselmancer
rediculous.
...read that as British pornographic industry?
Tired of all the isms, don't exploit people as an employer, or a government, mmmmK?
Unless you really understand and believe that, you'll dream this merry life of good vs evil, right vs wrong when corporations have no such concepts
Do you actually know anyone who works in an incorporated business? Are they all drooling zombies? No? I didn't think so. Most of the people I know are involved in one way or another with a corporate business, because that's how big expensive things get done. None of them check their morality at the door, sure as hell don't check with the board of directors or the accounting office before "picking up a wandering child" (to use your example).
Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
WHY SHOULD I PAY FOR YOUR FAILED BUSSINESS MODEL?
What I would do if I were in charge of AllofMP3.com, with my rapidly rising market share (and ectoplasmically amazing typos), would be to really stick it 'em: announce that from now on all customers of the site will pay a 10 cent surcharge on each track. That surcharge would go directly to the artist (not the copyright holder), or the artist's nearest beneficiary, subject to those copyright holders applying for this to be done.
OK, OK I know it'll never happen, and that there would be massive admin and other problems, but that's what SHOULD happen.
Imagine though, like Amazon reviews: "I am the artist and I wish to claim my fee."
"And the meaning of words; when they cease to function; when will it start worrying you?"
Steal, n: (1) To take (the property of another) without right or permission.
So, in countries where someones works (eg, music) is owned by them (ie, is their property), it fits the description.
And no, they are linked. People are more likely to download music without permission of the artist if they cannot afford to purchase it legally.
The revolution will not be televised... but it will have a page on Wikipedia
lol @ me == pwned. I should know better that to pretend to care about grammar on slashdot.
This is what ThePirateBay thought of such threats
"and/or OWN content"
Artists and producers do not own the content.
They have a state-sponsored distibution-monopoly on the content.
Man, am I the only one who read the first sentence of the description and got "British Pornographic Industry" the first time through?
When life gives you lemons, you CLONE those lemons, and make SUPER-LEMONS. -- Dr. Cinnamon Scudworth, Ph.D
If a job's not worth doing, it's not worth doing right.
'sure as hell don't check with the board of directors or the accounting office before "picking up a wandering child"'
Of course they do! How would they collect the bonus they are due when they take it straight to the sweat shop to help make some more shoes!
So, in countries where someones works (eg, music) is owned by them (ie, is their property), it fits the description.
Nope, because they still have the music and the rights to it. The "content" owner hasn't actually been deprived of any property.
"Stealing" music would be falsifying the records to transfer the rights to it to yourself. Otherwise, it's copyright infringement. They're two seperate crimes for a reason.
The only problem with AllOfMP3 "going legal" is that I can promise you, with 5 nines of certainty, that part of going "legit" would involve losing the one thing that makes it more palatable to me(and, I suspect, many others) than, say, iTunes: they'd be required to DRM the shit out of the files.
Well, bingo: then it's those citizens who are to blame, and not the site/shop/casino/brothel/whatever that gets tried under US laws. That's the way the chain of responsibility points.
If it was Johnny Hornyguy that travelled to Holland to smoke pot, then sue Johnny Horny guy, don't try extending US laws to a cafe in Holland. And if Jack Pirate goes to the USSR to buy pirated music, by all means, sue Jack Pirate, don't try pretending that US or UK laws apply to a Russian site. It wasn't the cafe or shop that decidet to go to the US or UK and harrass someone out of their money, and they weren't breaking any laws of their own country. That's the whole point.
The BPI trying to sue a Russian site under UK laws strikes me as just stupid.
A polar bear is a cartesian bear after a coordinate transform.
I suppose at some level you can always argue that you personall disagree with copyright, or with the big record labels and trade groups, or that artists are abused in the current system, or that politicians' hands are in the pockets of the industry, and so on and so on and so on.
But it still continues to ignore basic thing: even if you erase all that, do you still believe that the creator of a work should have some rights to that work, including the choice of how much to ask in return for that work?
Nice work. Effectively what you are saying is "ignoring all your arguments against my opinion, what is your argument against my opinion".
It's ok that you don't agree with some of the arguments against the RIAA, but to nullify them and ask for some other nebulous argument is a little one-sided. And while you make some good points, you have set the table for a very lop-sided debate. Unfortunately, in my eyes, you cannot simply boil the whole debate to a simple yes or no question of whether the creator has rights.
JWall: GUI client for IPTables
(Yes, I realize that AllOfMP3.com believes it has a license to do this legally, but that is arguably AT MOST valid only in Russia, besides which, let's just forget about that for a moment.)
Here is the problem.. I visited the site to see the Russian artists offerings that are so popular on the site.
Hmmm Backstreet Boys, Arvil, 9 Inch Nails, Smashing Pumpkins.. Since when are these Russian artists selling to the Russian market? Somehow I doubt they have any agreement with these copyright holders and therin lies the problem. It isn't Russian artists selling only to a Russian market and beyond. It's artists and their distributors that have not authorized this retailer. Their IP has been stolen.
The truth shall set you free!
It might be a seperate crime, that makes no difference, you're still taking something "without right or permission".
"Stealing" music would be falsifying the records to transfer the rights to it to yourself
And I supposed "stealing" a car would involve hacking into the government computers to change the cars legal owner to be yourself? No, it doesn't matter about the records, what matters is the fact you take it without permission. And neither does it matter whether you're leaving an exact copy, therefore not depriving the owner. The word "stealing" isn't defined as depriving somebody of something without permission, it's defined by the action of the taking.
Despite what you believe the word should or shouldn't mean, this is what the work actually means, as per its definition.
The revolution will not be televised... but it will have a page on Wikipedia
Musicians should earn their living by actually, graps, playing live music.
Recording technologies just created an artificial situation, before the 20th century musicians had to actually work to earn a living, not make one recording and then sit back and relax.
If you are already working hard, good, but do not expect to make a living from recordings. It is frnkly immoral.
IANAL but write like a drunk one.
.... for 35 dirty bucks.
Musicians play and meet their fans, they sing, play, compose and perform.
A "recording artist" is not such. People expecting to make a living from recordings are dishonouring the profession.
IANAL but write like a drunk one.
People spending money there would surely be spending money in the RIAA shop.
RIAA and their dopelgangers worldwide don;t want to serve you, the consumer, they want to control you.
If you are all for that, great, enjoy.
Many chose legal options that are not trying to control us (and the legality of this website is still to be debated in the courts, and before anybody asks, I don't use them because there are other shops that actually care about costumers and artists as well).
IANAL but write like a drunk one.
Despite what you believe the word should or shouldn't mean, this is what the work actually means, as per its definition.
What are you, fucking dense? When someone copies an mp3 of a song, the original rights holder still holds the copyright. The copyright is the only actual property. Property is something you can hold, something you can posess, something that, once you sell it, is no longer yours. Copying a somg deprives no one of property. Copying a song is not stealing. It is copyright infringement. Feel free to argue that copyright infringement is as bad as theft, but continuing to claim it is theft just shows your utter ignorance of the precepts of law.
If a job's not worth doing, it's not worth doing right.
Same here; my main job is in the IT; while I am resident DJ every weekend for 15yrs long; as sidework I sometimes compose; which makes me also a musician and also an IT pro; although; I am not going on-tour like most bands do; I am taking my music carrierre secondary.
...
Guess the entire discussion here is a lil bit stupid; because; if my mother was a cow I had every day milk
cheers..
--- I am known for the ones who want to find me on the net. Is that a privacy risk or a privilege? One might wonder..
It's easy to call me ignorant when you're ignoring what I've said, huh. I've already said I know the difference under the law. What I'm talking about is purely language, you know... the dictionary? Take = to get into one's posession, steal = as 'take', but without right or permission. If you wanna keep hiding behind the fact that the law doesn't call it stealing, fine, and probably a good thing it doesn't too, as it makes it sound worse than I think it is, but that doesn't change the fact that aquiring works (NOT copyright, NOT legal ownership, but the created music/software/whatever) - with aquiring meaning you now have in your posession (you can now play it, run it, whatever), without permission, fits the definition of what theft is, UNLESS you consider the works to be public domain, and not the creators.
So please stop arguing about the fact that they still hold the copyright, because I'm not talking about that, and I haven't claimed that I am.
Now calm down, it's clouding your judgement.
The revolution will not be televised... but it will have a page on Wikipedia
>Steal, n: (1) To take (the property of another) without right or
>permission.
Your statement is wrong and pointless in many ways. First of, copyright has very little to do with property. Copyright does not mean ownership of anything, holding the copyright doesn't mean you "own" the work, it means that you simply has the copyright which only means you have a few exclusive rights, that are not related to what applies to ownership. So no, there is no property involved here.
Second, it is irrellevant what kind of definition you find in dictionaries. What is important is how the LAW defines things and what it judge as illegal or not. Things does not turn illegal just because your dictionary feels so when the law does not.
Finally, even applying that, there is a false logic here. You try to say that stealing means to take someones property (A->B). That does not however means that if you takes someones property, that it is stealing (B->A). It might be in some cases, but not nessecarilly in others. Finally, you seems to miss the step of comming from stealing to copyright infringement A->C. That is, you feel that copyright infringement is stealing(C->A) and is now firther making th assumption that if B->A (which was false though) B->A. You should take a class in logics befaure you get too lost.
>So, in countries where someones works (eg, music) is owned by them
>(ie, is their property), it fits the description.
Since owning doesn't apply to the "work" but to copies of the work (and the copyright holder does not usually own those after distribution or if someone else created them) there is no ownership of the work. There is an ownership of the copyright to the work but as said above, that is not the same as owning the work, so this statement of yours will never be true.
>What I'm talking about is purely language, you know...
See my opther post above, your logic is false. Still, even if it is not, or if we disregard that. What do you gain by discussing what one can possibly call it in the "language"? That leads nowere since the language diesn't define what is illegal or not. Just because you can call something whatever you want, doesn't turn it illegal (or legal) so it is a quite pointless excersise. In addition, since most others use the language different, especially in legal contents, why not try to use the "correct" or "common" terminology?
>If you wanna keep hiding behind the fact that the law doesn't call it
>stealing, fine, and probably a good thing it doesn't too, as it makes
>it sound worse than I think it is, but that doesn't change the fact
>that aquiring works (NOT copyright, NOT legal ownership, but the
>created music/software/whatever) - with aquiring meaning you now have
>in your posession (you can now play it, run it, whatever), without
>permission, fits the definition of what theft is, UNLESS you consider
>the works to be public domain, and not the creators.
Your logic is completely false and actually, your statement is also completely false. If I have a book but don't hold the copyright to it, someone else does, then if I give that book to someone, he got hold of the work without permision, yet it is neither stealing nor copyright infringement. Further, even if we consider cases were we make additional copies, it is STILL not nessecarilly copyright infringement nor illegal despite the copyright holder not wanting it or giving permision. So no matter HOW much you like it, trying to squeeze in some sort of stealing definition would not work since no matter what similarities you find, those exact actions would be perfectly legal. That is why we have copyright infringment defined to start with or we could just go along with stealing.....
"holding the copyright doesn't mean you "own" the work"
Legally, no... but jeez, come on, legally just means what your government/state/whatever will back. Are you really saying your moral objections are totally inline with the law? Something's wrong if it's illegal, and right otherwise? Do you not grant people personal rights? Do you know respect?
Sorry, but I'm a real actual person, I'm not a courthouse, I'm not a state, I'm a man. A persons works belongs to them, whether the law defends it or recognises it or not. You take me to a country with absolutely no copyright law, and I'll say the same thing. It's called thinking for yourself. This is a right that I grant a creator, and I have to say I'm not alone; many many people consider a creator the owner of his/her works.
What you're doing is claiming that stealing isn't stealing when the legal system has another name for it. You're using the letter of the law to defeat the spirit of the law. Well if that's how low you need to be, fine, but to anyone else, I encourage personal standards, irrespective of who's sticking up for who.
The revolution will not be televised... but it will have a page on Wikipedia
"That leads nowere since the language diesn't define what is illegal or not"
I wasn't talking about what's legal or not! My original post was regarding things that people will do when the law isn't there to stop them... what they will do when they can get away with it.
So let's look at what's just happened. I was discussing peoples actions within a lawless context, and the responses I got was telling me that what I was saying was wrong in a legal context. AS I was talking about a lawless, NOT legal context, that means that all words fall back to their dictionary, NOT LEGAL definitions, as per the context being discussed!
Does anybody here on slashdot understand what a context is???
Oh, and as for your 'passing on a book' example, you're totally mistaken, as theft is "without right or permission", not "without permission". If I pay for a book, I do believe I have the right to give it to whoever I want (except for a certain somebody who has a restraining order...)
The revolution will not be televised... but it will have a page on Wikipedia
I'm not for filtering or blocking any content, but the arguement that blocking/filtering 'material X' means one can block 'material Y' is silly and untrue.
You can use a sift to 'filter' gold from grains, but that doesn't mean you catch all the gold, and it doesn't mean that you can filter out any other minerals/material with the same method, with the same accuracy, or for the same cost.
Pictures are by nature dynamic, moreso than P2P traffic or other material that might commonly be filtered. Pr0n of any type uses the same protocol as regular web-material. Illegal pr0n, I would imagine, is even difficult to sift by hand. Take a TV actress and try to guess her age. Is a girl *really* young or just trying to look thus? When a human cannot even attain a strong accuracy in such material, how could anyone program a machine to do so (since the machine must, ultimately, be programmed by humans)? Yes, some stuff is going to be obvious to a human, but some isn't, and neither is going to be good for a computer. The best you could probably do is gauge flesh-tones Vs non-flesh-tones to ascertain whether an item is in fact pornographic or not, and even that isn't very effective and still doesn't deal with whether something is illegal or not.
Again, it's probably good for us that the community at large - including the legal community - is rather clueless about what 'magic' computers can and cannot perform, since filtering in general sucks. However I hardly see how an arguement that one could do (a) would qualify that one can also accomplish (b).
All they would have to do is use the big-box store method. More in, sell at a hugely underinflated rate at a loss (or much lower profit), thus undercutting the competitors and forcing them out of business. Once they're gone, jack up the prices and gouge the consumer again.
Not something I'd support, but I'm surprised it hasn't occurred to the ??AA, or likely it has but they wouldn't want to compromise their more immediate profits which are hardly affected by downloading (legit or non) as much as they'd like us to think.
Thanks awfully, but there's something called the "future conditional tense" you might want to look up.
>Are you really saying your moral
>objections are totally inline with the law?
Ehh, we are discussing what is legal and what is not. Or rather, you were arguing that it was stealing and was pulling out dictionary definitions of it stating:
"So, in countries where someones works (eg, music) is owned by them (ie, is their property), it fits the description."
I was just saying that is a wrong statement. There is no moral issues in it. Neither you, nor me, were expressing any moral feelings. If you want to discuss moral, fine, but don't pull out dictionary quotes then, that has even less to do with moral.
>What you're doing is claiming that stealing isn't stealing when the
>legal system has another name for it.
No, I was complaining about your use of logic which was faulty regardless of what you try to "prove" or say. But yes, stealing to me is about the same as the law defines it. Something might be morally wrong but I don't go arround trying to claim that it is stealing as well just because I feel it is not moral to do so.
>You're using the letter of the law to defeat the spirit of the law.
If you discuss copyright, the spirit of the law has NOTHING to do with stealing. The spirit of the copyright law is to help progress or arts and science and to help creation of works.
>I wasn't talking about what's legal or not! My original post was regarding things that
>people will do when the law isn't there to stop them... what they will do when they can
>get away with it.
Not true. From your earlier post in this particular thread:
>It might be a seperate crime, that makes no difference, you're still taking
>something "without right or permission".
That definately is talking about the legal issues and how the law is. Not a lawless situation since that would have no crime.
Further, you were talking about the definition of the word "steal":
>Despite what you believe the word should or shouldn't mean, this is what the work [sic]
>actually means, as per its definition.
Which is as I have shown irellevant since the logic is wrong in your argumentation.
Finally, making a copy is NEVER stealing, since you are creating something new. No matter what dictionary you try to find or whatever definition you want to apply to "steal", it can never be applied to someone creating something, regardless of if it is similar or identical to something else.
>FINE. What is it then? Perfectly legal? No.
Wrong, downloading is actually perfectly legal in many countries, just as it is copyright infringement in many countries as well. THAT is the problem. The problem is not your use of the word theft, it is how you use it to justify or argue if some completely unrelated action sis OK or not.
>So shut up and deal with the term 'theft'. It's accurate enough.
No, it is very inaccurate since many of the situations or actions that would fit your "definition" of stealing is in fact perfectly legal. Thus it is a useless way to argue if something is right or wrong or legal or illegal. Using the wrong terminology will make people jude the action by that terminology and end up wrong. So if you want to discuss the legalities, why not use the terminology that is applicable to law issues? Otherwise you will for sure end up wrong, people will missunderstand you and you yourself will end up completely wrong.
Again, the use of words without any regard given to meaning. The key word you use is "take". "Take" is a necessary part of "theft". However, the definition of "take" is not met at all with copyright infringement, because nothing is taken.
"And I supposed "stealing" a car would involve hacking into..."
Am I stealing your car if I build an exact copy of it which I drive around? According to your "faith-based" definition of theft which actually involves no theft or taking, it probably would. This is very analagous to the music-duplication situation.
" The word "stealing" isn't defined as depriving somebody of something without permission, it's defined by the action of the taking."
I'm glad you agree that taking is so important to the definition of theft. Hopefully, this is an admission that an act that involves creating a copy of something without even touching (or TAKING it) can never be theft.
"Despite what you believe the word should or shouldn't mean"
Looking up word definitions should dispell any of your lingering problems of "belief" concerning words. It really should not be so hard to consult actual authority instead of relying on incorrect opinions or beliefs.
Where were you when the voynix came?
I wonder sometimes if you type this without even thinking about it. If I copy your CD or download a copy of something on your server, how am I possibly getting your CD or the original copy on the server "in my possession"? Thank you anyway, for your sentence. It is central to the common-sense realization that it can't be theft without that necessary part of the definition: taking.
"UNLESS you consider the works to be public domain"
Irrelevant. File duplication of public-domain files never involves taking or possession either. (Well, there is possession, but you are possessing something you created, and no taking was involved in the act of possession).
Where were you when the voynix came?
"That definately is talking about the legal issues and how the law is"
Wow, how wrong you are is shocking. I said "It might be a seperate crime, that makes no difference" - it makes no difference because I wasn't talking about the criminal aspect of it. I thought I'd repeated that enough, but obviously not. Basically, what that sentence actually means, is that within the context I was discussing, crime is irrelevant ("makes no difference" is a clue to that). The fact that the criminal aspect of it makes no difference to what I was talking about is a pretty good indication that I wasn't talking about the law.
"Which is as I have shown irellevant since the logic is wrong in your argumentation"
Err, no, what you have shown is that you don't understand contextual statements.
"Finally, making a copy is NEVER stealing, since you are creating something new"
Have you never created something? Do you have no grasp of how somethings value can be that other than the media it's stored on, or the bitstream that describes it? Have you never created something that you've valued more than the disc you've written it to, or the paper you've drawn it on? What we're talking about is the work that goes into such a creation, which no, you absolutely are not creating anew when you copy it.
I would try and explain further, but I really can't see you understanding something when you've failed to so far.
The revolution will not be televised... but it will have a page on Wikipedia
"What we're talking about is the work that goes into such a creation, which no, you absolutely are not creating anew when you copy it."
Nobody is creating the original work all anew when they make a copy of it, not even the "authorized publishers". They're just creating a copy, authorized or not. So what is your point?
Where were you when the voynix came?
"how am I possibly getting your CD or the original copy on the server "in my possession"? "
Because the CD squeezes down a magical wire and pops out your drive, duh, what ends up in your posession is not the media I store it on, but the information.
Unless you're telling me that you do not possess any information, in which case, I could see why you're arguing what you are.
The revolution will not be televised... but it will have a page on Wikipedia
>Wow, how wrong you are is shocking. I said "It might be a seperate crime, that makes no
>difference" - it makes no difference because I wasn't talking about the criminal aspect
>of it.
So why are you bringing it up? And what do you suppose "other" mean? You drag out dictionary meanings of "stealing" and then claim that in the end you are just talking about your own ideas of moral? Are you basing that on what the dictionary defines as "stealing" and go along with that?
>Have you never created something?
Depending on what you mean by something, yeah, sure.
>Do you have no grasp of how somethings value can be that other than the media it's stored
>on, or the bitstream that describes it?
I suppose you are talking about works that one get copyright on but yes, the value to me can be many different things, and to someone else it can be of value in various other ways. What is your point?
>Have you never created something that you've valued more than the disc you've written it
>to, or the paper you've drawn it on?
Yes, again, what is your point? And how would the valuein any way be affected by what others create?
>What we're talking about is the work that goes into such a creation, which no, you
>absolutely are not creating anew when you copy it.
Who claimed that?
>I would try and explain further, but I really can't see you understanding something when
>you've failed to so far.
So why did you ever bother to reply in the first place? To be able to sling shots as this and feel good or something? Fine, if that is of "value" to you, do so, I don't really care, I try to stick to the discussion at hand.
You're talking about something else. I'm talking about "that's the thing the RIAA has failed to grasp. Even at 10 cents a track and without any DRM, they could be making a fortune."
The RIAA has an enormous catalog. Those costs of producing it are "sunk". The price point at allofmp3.com is about right for music. Priced there, the RIAA and all the artists involved would make a killing. Priced there, I suspect that 3 or 4 times as many artists would be able to earn a living from their music. (Would you pay $18 for a CD by a fairly unknown band that you kinda liked? How about $2.50?)
The RIAA will not price there. Not -- as the original post and I keep arguing -- because it would hurt their profits. It might increase them. Rather, it's because it would explode their myth -- which keeps them in business -- that music is really expensive and thus requires big well-funded companies to "invest" in it otherwise we wouldn't have any
Here's the cost breakdown of a CD. Graphed. As you can see, the fixed costs you're talking about occupy a tiny slice of the pie.
My turnips listen for the soft cry of your love
Maybe you're trolling, but I figure there are enough people out there who seriously think something like that to make replying worthwhile.
I personally believe that copyright is immoral because of the restrictions it places on citizens (especially in a digital age where information duplication is so easy and beneficial). As far as I'm concerned, any artist can set a bounty on their work creation (go around asking for $x to make a given thing), or ask for donations, or whatever. But they do not have the right to control their work after it has passed into public view.
This argument frustrates me to no end because it's so very short-sighted. Of course current copyright laws need revision, but if you simply did away with copyright, everything you're enjoying now would disappear so fast your head would spin. I'm sure you don't like DRM-locked music, and you're probably pro open-source... but if we enacted your "everything is public domain" you would basically force all but hobbyist music into extreme DRM lockdown, and open-source would also lose all its advantages.
Think about it. My wife's a writer, so I tend to come at it from that angle first. She spent about 7 years writing her first novel. Her publisher is giving her an advance, and she'll get a bonus plus royalties once her advance is covered by sales. The publisher pays her editor, plus pays for all advertisement costs, managing book tours, printing and distribution, etc.. Even with good advertising, there's no guarantee they'll make money -- in fact, they usually don't; they make up for it by sometimes finding a book that really sells well and makes them enough money to cover the losses from rest of the authors in their stable. The money they pay my wife won't be huge (divided over the 7 years of work), but hopefully she'll get the next book out quicker, and hopefully she can build name recognition to increase future sales. She also retains film and foreign rights for a separate, future contract, so that's another possible source of income from this book.
Now let's imagine as soon as the first copy is released (in paper or online) *any* publisher can print and sell it, make a movie out of it, etc. without paying her a dime. Surprise; of course the standard publishers will go out of business immediately, and only printers will survive, competing to print the cheapest copies. None of them will be able to affort to advertise, because the competitors (without the advertising costs, but reaping the benefits) will wipe them out. My wife would have two options:
* Set up a website to plead for donations. Of course, the actually published books (hard copy or electronic) needn't bother to link her site, and she'd have no money for advertising, but let's say 10,000 generous fans who picked up the book at the beach for $1.50 googled her name (a ridiculous overestimate, since no one will be advertising her book), stopped by and contributed a buck. Great, honey, you just netted an average of $1,428 annually, which may just about cover hosting the site and payment processing fees.
* Stop writing books, or relegate writing to a spare-time hobby.
Let's look at the music POV since that's what you were discussing. Musicians need money to simply survive, plus recording, mastering, advertising, distribution (yes, even online distribution)... all costs money, and lots of people besides the musicians themselves need to get paid somehow to do all that, or they can't survive either. Welcome to capitalism, right? After paying for this stuff the music labels likewise lose money on many bands that just don't pan out into good sales, but they make up for it with the pop stars that make it big.
Now let's take away the revenue stream entirely. The recording companies go away -- that's what you wanted, right? -- and only some touring management companies remain. Bands that are already well-known can probably do just fine touring and pay for some advertising out of that, though concerts will likely get a lot more expensive (si
- Providing it in the target's language, even though it is not that of the provider and country it is ostensibly for. (Heck, do you think 'All of MP3' has any meaning in Russian?)
- Charging for it, especially in the target's currency, instead of simply providing a free service.
I'm not going to bother debating this further, your analogy is too weak. Russia HAS copyright laws; AllOfMP3 is simply taking advantage of a hole in them to make a killing in countries where their service is completely illegal. You buying is as illegal as them selling, and if they were truly trying to limit it Russia, they would probably block sales to foreign credit cards or something similar, rather than posting a notice (in English, on and English page) suggesting clients confirm the legality (in the client's country, which is where it matters) of their purchases (in US dollars or British pounds) themselves.Oh, and are you suggesting that it should be legal for you to buy fully automatic weapons in countries where that is legal, and have them shipped to the US or UK for use here? If nothing else, AllOfMP3 is exporting - and it's western customers are importing - products that are not legal here.
There's no place I could be, since I've found Serenity...