Your "right" has a caveat: That the work be out of copyright. You stated that yourself.
That's not a "natural" right (like the right to life, the right to liberty, freedom from persecution etc). It's a point of law. Until copyright is expired, the work may not be copied without the permission of the rights holder. Your point is pedantic, as opposed to insightful.
And, most important of all, anyone can give out copies of digital works without knowing or caring about the legality. No matter how badly certain industries want to make it legally or technically impossible, they can't stop us from copying.
And, most important of all, anyone can drive at high speed in a residential area without knowing or caring about the legality. No matter how badly certain industries want to make it legally or technically impossible, they can't stop us from speeding.
And, most important of all, anyone can give out drugs to children without knowing or caring about the legality. No matter how badly certain industries want to make it legally or technically impossible, they can't stop us from selling crack to minors.
And, most important of all, anyone can stab another person without knowing or caring about the legality. No matter how badly certain industries want to make it legally or technically impossible, they can't stop us from committing murder.
Technical capability does not make it justified or right. You certainly can give out copies of digital works without knowing or caring about the legality; Just don't expect it to be an admissible defence if you're taken to court about it.
There's a passage in the Qur'an which stipulates that a muslim may impersonate the enemy in order to defeat him, to paraphrase horribly. Alcohol is fine, non-halal meat is fine, cutting your hair is fine, as long as you're doing it to defeat the West.
Ha ha! But I am in England! Our prisons are cushy places, where they send you to amusement parks and give you free hookers daily!
What? What the fudge is extradition? WHAT DO YOU MEAN THEY CAN FLY ME TO AMERICA TO TRY ME IN AN AMERICAN COURT FOR A CRIME I COMMITTED ON UK SOIL AND THEN SEND ME TO AMERICAN PMITA PRISON?!
I just learned that there is an average of 6.5 secondary infections of smallpox per primary infection in a community with no natural immune resistance.
That's the difference between us and them. They don't care what "subnet" means. I needed to know what R0 meant.
Well done! You've picked flaws in my assumptions, and completely missed the logical argument. Are you a politician?
If I acquire a good or service without having to pay for it, I profit. In this instance, if I acquire a music recording without having to go to the store and hand over money in exchange for a CD, or allow an internet company to take money from my account for a digital download, I profit. I profit because those funds are still available to me, and I may use them for other goods or services which I potentially would otherwise not have been able to afford.
You can call me a shill if you wish, but all I do is argue a point of logic. It may not even be legally accurate, but the logic is sound.
Having been on a jury, I can safely state that this is not presented as an option within UK courts. Juries are instructed to return the verdicts of guilty or not guilty, and they're too blinded by the posh robes and wigs to think they have any other choice.
Set up a paypal account for people to donate to your legal fees. I'm willing to bet you get about $2k max in donations, as anyone who cares can't afford to give you much, and there are too many people who are just to apathetic about the whole thing.
As long as they have their bowl of Tesco Own Spaghetti Bolognese, X Factor, and a healthy stream of racists or fundamentalists to vent their frustrations at / blame for the decline of society, they're happy.
Sometimes, I wish I was one of them. Life would be so much more simple if I could just get along with the banality without questioning everything put in front of me, or if I could switch off the little voice in my head which tells me, quite correctly, that society is blind to all inconvenient truth until it is smashed into their face, strapped to the chest of a brainwashed religious fanatic, then smeared across the evening news.
Ironically, I'd download a symphony recording over any of the big label garbage currently being produced. Not found an online store for them yet, though.
Who do we pay? The store. Who do the store pay? The distributor. Who does the distributor pay? The importer. Who do they import from? Record labels. There are so many degrees of separation from the artist and the consumer that paying for music directly is almost impossible.
The "old way" music was produced was when a wealthy person commissioned work to be produced, to his liking, or when a public performance was organised and we had a very similar concept to the concerts we have today, with venue staff taking a cut, food and drink vendors hawking goods, and the artists taking a lot of the money back with them, as without the artist there was no market for the food and drink, and the venue is just a wasted space.
Distributing recordings is the only tie-in these people have, and with the Internet that's not the issue any more. Now we need to reintroduce either a predominantly live-performance model, or pay artists for music we like directly. For that, however, we need to reintroduce people to the concept of going to listen to music they've not heard before. Without a big company throwing endless money at "marketing" a new band, they rely on word of mouth. Not many people know of the sneakernet, any more.
You have to buy an instrument, then learn to play it. You could get lessons, or you could teach yourself.
Here's some examples of making truly astounding music with nothing more than a $100 guitar and a webcam. (Note that the featured instruments are significantly more expensive, as well as the recording equipment, but the same level of skill and exposure can be achieved with over-the-counter hardware).
Making music is indeed not expensive at all. The time preparing for making music is expensive in time at least, but distribution isn't even expensive any more. We just need to stop buying the big label music, and support good local bands, or directly pay artists. It is so very, very simple.
You don't profit by not having to pay for the music you download? I would think that having the money available in your account for other endeavours, instead of in the accounts of your record labels, would be considered profit.
Slashdot Mirror
I know that my Cisco router is much better than my home D-Link router. The Cisco one:
- Is twice the size
- Requires storing in a wall mounted rack
-Cost two orders of magnitude more
- Has more fans
For all the noise it makes, it bloody well best be more efficient than my home router.
Just clicking on http://192.168.1.1/cgi-bin/;rm-r [192.168.1.1] would destroy your router.
I don't believ
That's not a "natural" right (like the right to life, the right to liberty, freedom from persecution etc). It's a point of law. Until copyright is expired, the work may not be copied without the permission of the rights holder. Your point is pedantic, as opposed to insightful.
And, most important of all, anyone can give out copies of digital works without knowing or caring about the legality. No matter how badly certain industries want to make it legally or technically impossible, they can't stop us from copying.
And, most important of all, anyone can drive at high speed in a residential area without knowing or caring about the legality. No matter how badly certain industries want to make it legally or technically impossible, they can't stop us from speeding.
And, most important of all, anyone can give out drugs to children without knowing or caring about the legality. No matter how badly certain industries want to make it legally or technically impossible, they can't stop us from selling crack to minors.
And, most important of all, anyone can stab another person without knowing or caring about the legality. No matter how badly certain industries want to make it legally or technically impossible, they can't stop us from committing murder.
Technical capability does not make it justified or right. You certainly can give out copies of digital works without knowing or caring about the legality; Just don't expect it to be an admissible defence if you're taken to court about it.
I'm looking. It may take time, as I don't own any religious texts, but I'll find the passage and quote it.
There's a passage in the Qur'an which stipulates that a muslim may impersonate the enemy in order to defeat him, to paraphrase horribly. Alcohol is fine, non-halal meat is fine, cutting your hair is fine, as long as you're doing it to defeat the West.
Or so their organisers tell them.
Ha ha! But I am in England! Our prisons are cushy places, where they send you to amusement parks and give you free hookers daily!
What? What the fudge is extradition? WHAT DO YOU MEAN THEY CAN FLY ME TO AMERICA TO TRY ME IN AN AMERICAN COURT FOR A CRIME I COMMITTED ON UK SOIL AND THEN SEND ME TO AMERICAN PMITA PRISON?!
Who the hell is Garry McKinnon?
AMERICUUR! FUCK YEAH!
Agreed. I was pointing out the fallacy that each individual song should be counted as an infringement, not each copy of the song.
Was it the use of the word capitalist? You do know that it's a perfectly valid economics term, right?
Only when followed by the word "pig!" and uttered in an Eastern European accent.
What about when he grew up and couldn't fit into his old shoes any more?
Or his old pants?
Ew.
You're forgetting that each copy of a song is potentially a lost sale for the artist.
Why do you think MediaSentry wanted the connection history from ISPs so they could figure out how many potential copies were made.
Fair?
You must be naive, here.
I just learned that there is an average of 6.5 secondary infections of smallpox per primary infection in a community with no natural immune resistance.
That's the difference between us and them. They don't care what "subnet" means. I needed to know what R0 meant.
You're not far wrong... It doesn't look like an AK-47, but it looks scarily similar to a Barret M107.
http://www.google.co.uk/search?q=50+cal
Mod parent insightful; I'm currently doing a Law degree.
Well done! You've picked flaws in my assumptions, and completely missed the logical argument. Are you a politician?
If I acquire a good or service without having to pay for it, I profit. In this instance, if I acquire a music recording without having to go to the store and hand over money in exchange for a CD, or allow an internet company to take money from my account for a digital download, I profit. I profit because those funds are still available to me, and I may use them for other goods or services which I potentially would otherwise not have been able to afford.
You can call me a shill if you wish, but all I do is argue a point of logic. It may not even be legally accurate, but the logic is sound.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hotel_California_(song)
Having been on a jury, I can safely state that this is not presented as an option within UK courts. Juries are instructed to return the verdicts of guilty or not guilty, and they're too blinded by the posh robes and wigs to think they have any other choice.
This lends a lot of weight to the hyperbole of "one millions shots fired for every man killed in Vietnam."
Try it.
Set up a paypal account for people to donate to your legal fees. I'm willing to bet you get about $2k max in donations, as anyone who cares can't afford to give you much, and there are too many people who are just to apathetic about the whole thing.
The populace doesn't care.
As long as they have their bowl of Tesco Own Spaghetti Bolognese, X Factor, and a healthy stream of racists or fundamentalists to vent their frustrations at / blame for the decline of society, they're happy.
Sometimes, I wish I was one of them. Life would be so much more simple if I could just get along with the banality without questioning everything put in front of me, or if I could switch off the little voice in my head which tells me, quite correctly, that society is blind to all inconvenient truth until it is smashed into their face, strapped to the chest of a brainwashed religious fanatic, then smeared across the evening news.
Prozac Nation indeed.
Ironically, I'd download a symphony recording over any of the big label garbage currently being produced. Not found an online store for them yet, though.
Who do we pay? The store. Who do the store pay? The distributor. Who does the distributor pay? The importer. Who do they import from? Record labels. There are so many degrees of separation from the artist and the consumer that paying for music directly is almost impossible.
The "old way" music was produced was when a wealthy person commissioned work to be produced, to his liking, or when a public performance was organised and we had a very similar concept to the concerts we have today, with venue staff taking a cut, food and drink vendors hawking goods, and the artists taking a lot of the money back with them, as without the artist there was no market for the food and drink, and the venue is just a wasted space.
Distributing recordings is the only tie-in these people have, and with the Internet that's not the issue any more. Now we need to reintroduce either a predominantly live-performance model, or pay artists for music we like directly. For that, however, we need to reintroduce people to the concept of going to listen to music they've not heard before. Without a big company throwing endless money at "marketing" a new band, they rely on word of mouth. Not many people know of the sneakernet, any more.
You have to buy an instrument, then learn to play it. You could get lessons, or you could teach yourself.
Here's some examples of making truly astounding music with nothing more than a $100 guitar and a webcam. (Note that the featured instruments are significantly more expensive, as well as the recording equipment, but the same level of skill and exposure can be achieved with over-the-counter hardware).
Antione Dufour - Reality
Erik Mongrain - AirTap
Bass guitar? No problem, get an amp too and make something like this: Victor Wooten - Various songs
Making music is indeed not expensive at all. The time preparing for making music is expensive in time at least, but distribution isn't even expensive any more. We just need to stop buying the big label music, and support good local bands, or directly pay artists. It is so very, very simple.
You don't profit by not having to pay for the music you download? I would think that having the money available in your account for other endeavours, instead of in the accounts of your record labels, would be considered profit.