Music is protected by copyright. The unauthorized downloading or uploading of music is actionable as copyright infringement, even if not done for profit.
Where in copyright law does it say that downloading is illegal? My friggin' radio downloads music from the air for pete's sake.
Of course the RIAA is not going to say "don't download music!", they are going to say "don't download music that isn't authorized to be downloaded" along with a list of RIAA approved sites to download music from. No where on that I can find on the RIAA's site is of sites where music can be downloaded without authorization yet we both know that such music exists.
At the very least one would think that they would at least provide a database of music that can't be downloaded without authorization. Really, how hard would that be? It's as if they want everyone to assume anything not provided by them or some other **AA is illegal.
My point was that sharing is infringing only under very specific circumstances, and simply downloading may not be infringing at all. The RIAA and its supporters very often conveniently forget phrases such as except for fair use, without permission, unless in the public domain, etc. They twist the language to convince everyone that no content can be experienced without their blessing.
Not being a lawyer but having an interest in these matters I find it extremely important that precise language is used when discussing such matters as these.
The RIAA and its supporters are particular adept at using generic terms for specific behaviors to muddy the waters and confuse layman such as myself as to just what constitutes copyright infringement.
All too often we see statements such as file sharing files is illegal or downloading music is illegal when in fact neither is the case even with the qualifier copyrighted added.
The whole trial smells of planned incompetence. As if someone wants a legal precedence on the books. You dont go into court arguing that the law is wrong, the courts dont address those concerns, government does. The court is only interested in enforcing laws on the books it seems to me. But im not a lawer so I dont really know shit about the process.
Slept your way through Social Studies, Government, and History classes did you? No matter, now that you have access to the internet I suggest you start here.
unwillingly in this case would refer to, for example, downloading an.mp3 named after a Nine Inch Nails song off of their album that was given away for free, but instead it turns out to be something else like Metallica.
Copyright infringement was committed, however until you listened to the song, you were under the impression that you DID have distribution permissions for that song.
Downloading is not distribution, listening is not copying. Where is the infringement here?
Each of these defendants quite obviously infringed copyright in that they quite obviously downloaded music without paying for it.
What law says you can't download music without paying for it? My radio downloads music with no more intervention from me other than to turn it on.
That is the law. You break it, you pay for it.
Or you fight it, just as in the past people fought slavery, jim crowe, prohibition, and many other laws they disliked. Laws that are obeyed don't get changed.
Not quite the same, but the U.S. had a fairly sane copyright registration system before signing on to Berne. It just makes sense that people who care about protecting their works would register and people who don't, won't.
It is fear that will be the downfall of our "Home of the Brave". Fear that our kids will not believe in a god if they are taught evolution, fear that they will blow us up if they are taught chemistry, and fear that they will "steal" songs if they are taught math.
Though I agree with you on principle the reality is there isn't a chance in hell that would come to pass anytime soon. However a compromise might be reached by giving the mafia the "forever minus a day" that they want contingent on yearly renewal fees and the removal of derivative rights.
So what the Pirate Bay should have done was set as its purpose to be a site that told stories about how pirates commit piracy?
Seeing as how authors and filmmakers very often depend on depicting the details of how criminals commit crimes to sell their wares they should have no problems with sites dedicated to the same.
One such story might begin thus:
"Alvin, feeling downtrodden by the corporate masters ruling society, created a.torrent file that contained the following data...(insert link to data here)".
Would that be enough? Or do you believe any description of how crimes are committed should be censored?
Perhaps if the holders of H264 patents granted royalty free rights for foss implementations of their codecs everyone could have their cake and eat it too.
When I play a game, I want to suffer. Real life is easy and pleasant enough already.
Recent occurrence. You stop in a burger joint just in time to be caught up in the middle of a drug deal gone bad. A stray bullet pierces your skin and lodges itself between your C2 and C3 vertebrae.
When I play a game, I want to suffer. Real life is easy and pleasant enough already.
Do you really want experience the joys of spending your remaining days without the use of your limbs and your very survival dependent on those maintaining your life support?
That isn't terribly true, Jython can use reflection to access any Java class, no messing about with shims or an FFI, and I think the situation on the.net CLR is about the same.
That's not very helpful to those wishing to write code in lisp. C libraries can be linked to by just about any other language.
...the thing about C is that libraries written in it are among the easiest for higher level languages to interface with. It's almost ironic in a way that C gives more freedom to those who refuse to it.
...IPS monitor. If gamers would quit lapping up all those fast, cheap TN crap monitors and start holding out for IPS or even high end PVA monitors those willing to invest in quality products would risk their dollars on advancing the tech. That's just how the market works, the more crap that gets bought the more crap that gets made.
...same as the old boss. But this is not just a bit of education for Obama supporters, it is a valuable lesson for Bush II supporters as well. The extraordinary powers to further your agenda that you grant to your glorious leaders today are certain to be abused to further the agendas of their successors tomorrow.
Nobody has a right to illegally download copyrighted materials.
It's bad enough that copyright law restricts what can be said, written, and pictured, but restricting what can heard, read, and viewed is just way over the top. No business model is worth preserving that requires individuals to surrender such basic human freedoms.
It is only when everyone is completely free to spread and comment on information that everyone will be free. Until then the people without will be subject to the filters of the people with.
Suggestion for news aggregators: Quit trying to emulate television by attempting to force ads on your viewers.
Slashdot Mirror
I knew I'd find it if I looked hard enough...
RIAA ispnotice
Music is protected by copyright. The unauthorized downloading or uploading of music is actionable as copyright infringement, even if not done for profit.
Where in copyright law does it say that downloading is illegal? My friggin' radio downloads music from the air for pete's sake.
Of course the RIAA is not going to say "don't download music!", they are going to say "don't download music that isn't authorized to be downloaded" along with a list of RIAA approved sites to download music from. No where on that I can find on the RIAA's site is of sites where music can be downloaded without authorization yet we both know that such music exists.
At the very least one would think that they would at least provide a database of music that can't be downloaded without authorization. Really, how hard would that be? It's as if they want everyone to assume anything not provided by them or some other **AA is illegal.
My point was that sharing is infringing only under very specific circumstances, and simply downloading may not be infringing at all. The RIAA and its supporters very often conveniently forget phrases such as except for fair use, without permission, unless in the public domain, etc. They twist the language to convince everyone that no content can be experienced without their blessing.
Not being a lawyer but having an interest in these matters I find it extremely important that precise language is used when discussing such matters as these.
The RIAA and its supporters are particular adept at using generic terms for specific behaviors to muddy the waters and confuse layman such as myself as to just what constitutes copyright infringement.
All too often we see statements such as file sharing files is illegal or downloading music is illegal when in fact neither is the case even with the qualifier copyrighted added.
The whole trial smells of planned incompetence. As if someone wants a legal precedence on the books. You dont go into court arguing that the law is wrong, the courts dont address those concerns, government does. The court is only interested in enforcing laws on the books it seems to me. But im not a lawer so I dont really know shit about the process.
Slept your way through Social Studies, Government, and History classes did you? No matter, now that you have access to the internet I suggest you start here.
The method of distribution doesn't matter at all.
unwillingly in this case would refer to, for example, downloading an .mp3 named after a Nine Inch Nails song off of their album that was given away for free, but instead it turns out to be something else like Metallica.
Copyright infringement was committed, however until you listened to the song, you were under the impression that you DID have distribution permissions for that song.
Downloading is not distribution, listening is not copying. Where is the infringement here?
Each of these defendants quite obviously infringed copyright in that they quite obviously downloaded music without paying for it.
What law says you can't download music without paying for it? My radio downloads music with no more intervention from me other than to turn it on.
That is the law. You break it, you pay for it.
Or you fight it, just as in the past people fought slavery, jim crowe, prohibition, and many other laws they disliked. Laws that are obeyed don't get changed.
Not quite the same, but the U.S. had a fairly sane copyright registration system before signing on to Berne. It just makes sense that people who care about protecting their works would register and people who don't, won't.
...that values personal freedom over corporate or government control, I am for them.
It is fear that will be the downfall of our "Home of the Brave". Fear that our kids will not believe in a god if they are taught evolution, fear that they will blow us up if they are taught chemistry, and fear that they will "steal" songs if they are taught math.
Does the Berne Convention say that the penalty for violating a non-registered copyright has to be the same as violating a registered one?
The vast majority of people who created the works don't care but the vast majority of corporations do.
Though I agree with you on principle the reality is there isn't a chance in hell that would come to pass anytime soon. However a compromise might be reached by giving the mafia the "forever minus a day" that they want contingent on yearly renewal fees and the removal of derivative rights.
That'd be pretty clearly a fairly empty story, lacking in entertainment or informational value compared to the real intent of disseminating the movie.
Good, I was hoping my example would equal to the standard Hollywood offerings.
So no, that wouldn't be enough. A judge would see right through it.
The same as a judge would see a detailed murder scene as enticement to commit murder?
I see.
So what the Pirate Bay should have done was set as its purpose to be a site that told stories about how pirates commit piracy?
Seeing as how authors and filmmakers very often depend on depicting the details of how criminals commit crimes to sell their wares they should have no problems with sites dedicated to the same.
One such story might begin thus:
"Alvin, feeling downtrodden by the corporate masters ruling society, created a .torrent file that contained the following data...(insert link to data here)".
Would that be enough? Or do you believe any description of how crimes are committed should be censored?
Perhaps if the holders of H264 patents granted royalty free rights for foss implementations of their codecs everyone could have their cake and eat it too.
When I play a game, I want to suffer. Real life is easy and pleasant enough already.
Recent occurrence. You stop in a burger joint just in time to be caught up in the middle of a drug deal gone bad. A stray bullet pierces your skin and lodges itself between your C2 and C3 vertebrae.
When I play a game, I want to suffer. Real life is easy and pleasant enough already.
Do you really want experience the joys of spending your remaining days without the use of your limbs and your very survival dependent on those maintaining your life support?
Personally I feel medical billing software should be required to be open source so that every line of their code could be scrutinized.
That isn't terribly true, Jython can use reflection to access any Java class, no messing about with shims or an FFI, and I think the situation on the
That's not very helpful to those wishing to write code in lisp. C libraries can be linked to by just about any other language.
...the thing about C is that libraries written in it are among the easiest for higher level languages to interface with. It's almost ironic in a way that C gives more freedom to those who refuse to it.
...IPS monitor. If gamers would quit lapping up all those fast, cheap TN crap monitors and start holding out for IPS or even high end PVA monitors those willing to invest in quality products would risk their dollars on advancing the tech. That's just how the market works, the more crap that gets bought the more crap that gets made.
Why trade CD/DVDs when media cards and flash drives can store much more information and are far easier to conceal?
...same as the old boss. But this is not just a bit of education for Obama supporters, it is a valuable lesson for Bush II supporters as well. The extraordinary powers to further your agenda that you grant to your glorious leaders today are certain to be abused to further the agendas of their successors tomorrow.
Nobody has a right to illegally download copyrighted materials.
It's bad enough that copyright law restricts what can be said, written, and pictured, but restricting what can heard, read, and viewed is just way over the top. No business model is worth preserving that requires individuals to surrender such basic human freedoms.
It is only when everyone is completely free to spread and comment on information that everyone will be free. Until then the people without will be subject to the filters of the people with.
Suggestion for news aggregators: Quit trying to emulate television by attempting to force ads on your viewers.