The thing is, everyone should have a problem with Sony's actions. What Sony is trying to do goes beyond just screwing their customers; Sony is trying to destroy the concept of property rights by subjugating an owner's right to modify his property below Sony's desire to dictate how their product is used!
That's your point of view, and i agree with you, but most people don't have that point of view, most people clearly don't care about that. I can go around saying everyone should agree with me and logically justify it, but that certainly doesn't mean they will.
You have the right to assemble. If someone infringes that right, they didn't "take that right away." You still have the right to assemble.
If someone infringes on your right to assemble that means you can't assemble, so they have *taken* ability to exercise that right (so the fact that you have that right is irrelevant). How hard is it to understand that? Your own example proves you wrong.
you seem to be assuming because there isn't an essential need for something (like water for instance) that there is no market for it.
the truth is, Most purchases are frivolous. take every video game you've ever played... or television... or <insert just about everything outside of food and water>
I think it's obvious that he didn't mean 'need' in the context of an essential item for existence. He meant 'need' in the context of modern society, like the need to be connected - being able to contact someone via mobile phone is pretty much a given these days. (im sure there'll be a 'not me, i don't have a cell phone' reply, but you are an extreme minority).
Let me put it to you this way. I am the real owner of music, how exactly do i dictate the terms - whatever terms i want - under which it is used?
You make people sign a contract stating the terms you want to give them, obviously.
When have you ever signed a contract when buying music that told you how you can use it? As a copyright owner i don't dictate the terms, copyright law does.
It's likely they aren't ignorant, just that they are just gamers. People who aren't affected by or don't care about the actions of Sony. Sure they should care - just like with the otherOS fiasco - but the fact is the vast majority of sony's customers aren't interested and forcing them to take a side on the issue is likely to go against the DDOSers.
If a service i used got DDOS'd as an attack on a company's actions that i didn't have a problem with then i'd be pretty pissed off too. Sure this could have the effect of showing that sony's actions are having a negative effect on a large number of their customers but I reckon it's only going to rally those customer's to Sony's call to 'fight the hackers'. I'm on geohot's side in this court case but i don't these DDOS actions are going to have a positive effect.
In what way does a copyright owner dictate the terms under which the music can be played?
Try playing that CD or movie that you bought in front of a large enough audience, and you'll soon find out. If they find out they'll be coming after you because you don't have a license to "publicly" perform their work.
No, that's copyright law, not the copyright owner dictating those terms. You're avoiding the question because you can't answer it.
The statement is bullshit because the real owner does not dictate the terms under which you can play it.
Sure they do. They've spent millions to have their say, and if they have a problem with the way you're using it, they'll spend millions more trying to make sure that people can't do it. And the limitations that have been imposed, by law, were only because people thought their original terms were slightly too unreasonable.
So... you own nothing but a license to play it under the terms that its real owner dictates, to the extent that they're permitted by law. But it's ridiculously unnecessary for me to have to say that they aren't allowed to break the law...
You own a license to play it under the terms dictated by copyright law, not by the owner of the music copyright. Let me put it to you this way. I am the real owner of music, how exactly do i dictate the terms - whatever terms i want - under which it is used?
They have the legal right to be the sole legal distributor. They never lose that.
No, you're adding in words to support your argument, it's not about being the sole 'legal' distributor. If someone else has distributed it outside of the confines of copyright law then you are no longer the sole distributor, they have taken that away from you.
Also, if you want to be picky, they don't have "complete control" in the first place. Fair Use and other exceptions let people distribute legally.
How do they let people 'distribute legally'? Fair use is nothing to do with distributing copyrighted material.
Perhaps you need to learn what copyright is, since you assert obvious falsehoods like "complete control" and such.
Really? After you quite clearly stated you think 'fair use' is related to distribution? You think I'm the one who needs a lesson in copyright? No you've made it very clear a number of times that you don't understand the concept of copyright.
The problem is now they have a filtering solution, but they weren't using it well enough.
No, because they are blocking the terms that likely result in illegal content, not the content itself. They can't be expected to check the validity of the results in all legal jurisdictions prior to suggesting a seemingly innocent search term.
They don't lose the exclusivity of distribution. They are still the only authorized distributors.
You may need to look up the term 'exclusivity' because being authorized is not necessary. If they aren't in complete control of distribution, authorized or not, then they have lost exclusivity of distribution.
No, you didn't - you replied to me. Go check the comment tree again.
You're the one who changed the subject. I was never talking about the "agreement with regard to usage when [you buy] tracks online". That is not what I was talking about.
You wrote: You own nothing but a license to play it under the terms that its real owner dictates
I responded to that and only that. The statement is bullshit because the real owner does not dictate the terms under which you can play it.
Then explain the loss to the copyright holder if I break into a house, take a CD, make an unauthorized copy, then break back into that house and put the CD back. Compare and contrast that to the loss to the sofa maker if I break into that same house and take a photo of a sofa.
The loss of exclusivity of distribution, which has value for copyright owners. Your idea would obviously work if copyright law didn't exist, but it does.
I don't get the obsession with stamping out proprietary software either.
I've never understood it either...why should the Free Software Foundation decide what I can and cannot run on my computer? I prefer to be able to choose to run whatever software i want, open source, free software and proprietary software can co-exist just fine. If i want to sacrifice the freedom to examine and change the source code for a particular program then that's my choice and i willfully make that choice. When i don't want to sacrifice that freedom i can choose a free alternative.
If i'm purely altruistic I'll use a BSD-style license and give code away, if i want to force code users to contribute back i'll go with a GPL license and if i don't want to release the code (in situations like where i guarantee the engineering output since it must comply with certain regulations) i'll use a proprietary model.
No, im just not going off-topic, go back and read it again, you wrote: You own nothing but a license to play it under the terms that its real owner dictates
Copyright law dictates the terms of use, *not* the copyright owner.
Then you're missing the part where that's what is in question here.
No, you're trying to take it off-topic. I asked the question, this is nothing to do with Amazon or its license and wholly about who dictates the terms under which you can play licensed music. These terms are dictated by copyright law and not by the copyright owner.
The concept of copyright is that the copyright owner owns - has the rights to - all of the copies, hence the term.
Uh, no. That's not even close to how it works.
Bullshit, you obviously don't know anything about copyright, that's the concept behind it given that is *exactly* how it is enforced.
It's absolutely NOT like that in any way. In terms of software the original item and the copy are identical, i'm not sure how you consider a couch and a photo of a couch to be identical items.
But it's not taking. Taking requires depriving someone of something.
The concept of copyright is that the copyright owner owns - has the rights to - all of the copies, hence the term.
It's stealing like breaking into someone's house and taking a photo of their couch is stealing.
wtf are you on about? It's absolutely NOT like that in any way. In terms of software the original item and the copy are identical, i'm not sure how you consider a couch and a photo of a couch to be identical items.
The internet says that it also promotes christianity, using the same arguments. Within minutes you can research churches, bible groups and also contact them...
Yeah but that's good, satanism is evil. Remember, good and evil are objective terms;)
I think what really needs to happen is pressure to break sony corp up in order to sell products in the US..
Why? I would agree with you if they were tying all their products (for example if the PS3 had features that could only be use on Sony TVs) together but they aren't.
Slashdot Mirror
The thing is, everyone should have a problem with Sony's actions. What Sony is trying to do goes beyond just screwing their customers; Sony is trying to destroy the concept of property rights by subjugating an owner's right to modify his property below Sony's desire to dictate how their product is used!
That's your point of view, and i agree with you, but most people don't have that point of view, most people clearly don't care about that. I can go around saying everyone should agree with me and logically justify it, but that certainly doesn't mean they will.
You have the right to assemble. If someone infringes that right, they didn't "take that right away." You still have the right to assemble.
If someone infringes on your right to assemble that means you can't assemble, so they have *taken* ability to exercise that right (so the fact that you have that right is irrelevant). How hard is it to understand that? Your own example proves you wrong.
you seem to be assuming because there isn't an essential need for something (like water for instance) that there is no market for it. the truth is, Most purchases are frivolous. take every video game you've ever played... or television... or <insert just about everything outside of food and water>
I think it's obvious that he didn't mean 'need' in the context of an essential item for existence. He meant 'need' in the context of modern society, like the need to be connected - being able to contact someone via mobile phone is pretty much a given these days. (im sure there'll be a 'not me, i don't have a cell phone' reply, but you are an extreme minority).
Let me put it to you this way. I am the real owner of music, how exactly do i dictate the terms - whatever terms i want - under which it is used?
You make people sign a contract stating the terms you want to give them, obviously.
When have you ever signed a contract when buying music that told you how you can use it? As a copyright owner i don't dictate the terms, copyright law does.
Yeah, but you have to love the terminology: "Internet hackers". "Your honor, I swear -- I never hacked the internet!"
Did you hear they landed the moon in 1969?
Or truly ignorant gamers.
It's likely they aren't ignorant, just that they are just gamers. People who aren't affected by or don't care about the actions of Sony. Sure they should care - just like with the otherOS fiasco - but the fact is the vast majority of sony's customers aren't interested and forcing them to take a side on the issue is likely to go against the DDOSers.
If a service i used got DDOS'd as an attack on a company's actions that i didn't have a problem with then i'd be pretty pissed off too. Sure this could have the effect of showing that sony's actions are having a negative effect on a large number of their customers but I reckon it's only going to rally those customer's to Sony's call to 'fight the hackers'. I'm on geohot's side in this court case but i don't these DDOS actions are going to have a positive effect.
In what way does a copyright owner dictate the terms under which the music can be played?
Try playing that CD or movie that you bought in front of a large enough audience, and you'll soon find out. If they find out they'll be coming after you because you don't have a license to "publicly" perform their work.
No, that's copyright law, not the copyright owner dictating those terms. You're avoiding the question because you can't answer it.
The statement is bullshit because the real owner does not dictate the terms under which you can play it.
Sure they do. They've spent millions to have their say, and if they have a problem with the way you're using it, they'll spend millions more trying to make sure that people can't do it. And the limitations that have been imposed, by law, were only because people thought their original terms were slightly too unreasonable.
So... you own nothing but a license to play it under the terms that its real owner dictates, to the extent that they're permitted by law. But it's ridiculously unnecessary for me to have to say that they aren't allowed to break the law...
You own a license to play it under the terms dictated by copyright law, not by the owner of the music copyright. Let me put it to you this way. I am the real owner of music, how exactly do i dictate the terms - whatever terms i want - under which it is used?
They have the legal right to be the sole legal distributor. They never lose that.
No, you're adding in words to support your argument, it's not about being the sole 'legal' distributor. If someone else has distributed it outside of the confines of copyright law then you are no longer the sole distributor, they have taken that away from you.
Also, if you want to be picky, they don't have "complete control" in the first place. Fair Use and other exceptions let people distribute legally.
How do they let people 'distribute legally'? Fair use is nothing to do with distributing copyrighted material.
Perhaps you need to learn what copyright is, since you assert obvious falsehoods like "complete control" and such.
Really? After you quite clearly stated you think 'fair use' is related to distribution? You think I'm the one who needs a lesson in copyright? No you've made it very clear a number of times that you don't understand the concept of copyright.
The problem is now they have a filtering solution, but they weren't using it well enough.
No, because they are blocking the terms that likely result in illegal content, not the content itself. They can't be expected to check the validity of the results in all legal jurisdictions prior to suggesting a seemingly innocent search term.
They don't lose the exclusivity of distribution. They are still the only authorized distributors.
You may need to look up the term 'exclusivity' because being authorized is not necessary. If they aren't in complete control of distribution, authorized or not, then they have lost exclusivity of distribution.
Google defended themselves by saying that they shouldn't be held responsible for the output of an algorithm that they created. That's weak.
You left out the key part regarding searches from users. The output is determined by the input, the input is dictated by users.
And in America, Google has a blacklist of words that are never included in their autocomplete results. They knew this kind of stuff would happen.
They filtered out stuff that more than likely is going to direct the user to illegal content, that obviously isn't the case in this situation.
Google defended themselves by saying that they shouldn't be held responsible for the output of an algorithm that they created. That's weak.
You left out the key part regarding searches from users. The output is determined by the input, the input is dictated by users.
The best quality software is available legally for free and with source code. The quality of commercial software isn't all that great.
Oh come on...if that were true no-one would be pirating Photoshop.
I was replying to someone who suggested that Amazon could allow streaming "one's own" music.
So? In what way does a copyright owner dictate the terms under which the music can be played? The answer is that they can't.
No, you didn't - you replied to me. Go check the comment tree again.
You're the one who changed the subject. I was never talking about the "agreement with regard to usage when [you buy] tracks online". That is not what I was talking about.
You wrote:
You own nothing but a license to play it under the terms that its real owner dictates
I responded to that and only that. The statement is bullshit because the real owner does not dictate the terms under which you can play it.
No, given the concept of copyright.
Then explain the loss to the copyright holder if I break into a house, take a CD, make an unauthorized copy, then break back into that house and put the CD back. Compare and contrast that to the loss to the sofa maker if I break into that same house and take a photo of a sofa.
The loss of exclusivity of distribution, which has value for copyright owners. Your idea would obviously work if copyright law didn't exist, but it does.
I don't get the obsession with stamping out proprietary software either.
I've never understood it either...why should the Free Software Foundation decide what I can and cannot run on my computer? I prefer to be able to choose to run whatever software i want, open source, free software and proprietary software can co-exist just fine. If i want to sacrifice the freedom to examine and change the source code for a particular program then that's my choice and i willfully make that choice. When i don't want to sacrifice that freedom i can choose a free alternative.
If i'm purely altruistic I'll use a BSD-style license and give code away, if i want to force code users to contribute back i'll go with a GPL license and if i don't want to release the code (in situations like where i guarantee the engineering output since it must comply with certain regulations) i'll use a proprietary model.
The desktop is a device mainly used by the general public to run a web browser and the Windows cannot even do that well.
You're doing it wrong.
You're looking at it wrong
No, im just not going off-topic, go back and read it again, you wrote:
You own nothing but a license to play it under the terms that its real owner dictates
Copyright law dictates the terms of use, *not* the copyright owner.
Then you're missing the part where that's what is in question here.
No, you're trying to take it off-topic. I asked the question, this is nothing to do with Amazon or its license and wholly about who dictates the terms under which you can play licensed music. These terms are dictated by copyright law and not by the copyright owner.
The concept of copyright is that the copyright owner owns - has the rights to - all of the copies, hence the term.
Uh, no. That's not even close to how it works.
Bullshit, you obviously don't know anything about copyright, that's the concept behind it given that is *exactly* how it is enforced.
It's absolutely NOT like that in any way. In terms of software the original item and the copy are identical, i'm not sure how you consider a couch and a photo of a couch to be identical items.
The loss to the owner is the same in both cases.
No, given the concept of copyright.
But it's not taking. Taking requires depriving someone of something.
The concept of copyright is that the copyright owner owns - has the rights to - all of the copies, hence the term.
It's stealing like breaking into someone's house and taking a photo of their couch is stealing.
wtf are you on about? It's absolutely NOT like that in any way. In terms of software the original item and the copy are identical, i'm not sure how you consider a couch and a photo of a couch to be identical items.
The internet says that it also promotes christianity, using the same arguments. Within minutes you can research churches, bible groups and also contact them...
Yeah but that's good, satanism is evil. Remember, good and evil are objective terms ;)
I think what really needs to happen is pressure to break sony corp up in order to sell products in the US..
Why? I would agree with you if they were tying all their products (for example if the PS3 had features that could only be use on Sony TVs) together but they aren't.