True, but looking at the average consumer, IP holders do have the means to stifle this trend. If they sue every acting company and break up every large organized network facilitating IP piracy, it will be relegated to a much lower probable percentage. Other methods such as FTP and IRC have barriers, namely technical understanding and underground status. Distributed network replacements also suffer the underground problem. Pirate music selection is then many orders of magnitude lower than that which is available on services such as napster. It's certainly not sufficient to prevent such trends altogether = but there are clearly available methods.
"Of course, 'inspired' news writing is not the point; after all, isn't news writing -- at least in the big news dailies -- targeted at, say, a 7th grade reading level?"
Yes, this is obvious given the business exists to profit. The larger the audience, the more money is raked in. This is achieved through the lowest common denominator. This is why we have papers like the daily sun in local incarnations and distribution with a "sunshine girl" on page 2, all over the world.
That doesn't mean there aren't exceptions though. In Canada, where I live, the globe and mail, a national paper, is fairly decent. Actually, it's probably equivalent to the New York Times. WSJ also does fairly accurate reporting, I think.
"I mean, I can remember watching Walter Cronkite sitting behind his anchorman's desk and report each night about Vietnam -- and I can remember the sense that, well, I could 'trust' Cronkite. "That's the way it is," he'd always say, and I believed him."
Taking news for truth is obviously a logical fallacy. Any thought regarding the method in which information is gathered and disseminated, including analysis of corporate hierarchy and business model will make this clear. This is the main reason for the proliferation of "media studies" in middle and secondary schools (not that it's taught right or has any lasting effect).
Natives in america had abundant resources. Due to this, there was less conflict and inter community interaction - and, hence, less scientific and technical innovation. Communal systems only work under said and other conditions.
But yes, Ayn Rand can lick my cock and balls (for reasons unrelated to this conversation).
A small lumber or mining town. The government declares conservation on much of the land. The town becomes poor because it relied on one or two industries. The people get angry because they can't use this land. There is dichotomy in government; They are responsible for the qualms of the people in their states. They are also responsible for the environment and sustained resources (well, at least if they need any votes from environmentalists to win their next election).
This is my primary reason for not using nix platforms for my primary desktop. If this point were rectified, I believe linux would become much more popular in the near term future, before someone else releases another codec tied to windows (and possibly mac).
No, this is false. Napster is equivalent to a large controlled distributed file system. ICQ contains file transfer capabilities. Unless you have 3000 people on your ICQ list, or there is some ICQ fileserver and plugin with ICQ wide search capabilities, I do not see the connection.
"But where do you draw the line?"
When it is organized, traceable, and possible to inhibit. When it is a corporation this is a definite.
Obviously you own that copy. You can convert it, splice it, dice it, remix it to your hearts content. However, there is a gray area at a point where you start copying your cd and giving it to friends. Lets say you create 500 copies and give it to your friends. I'd hardly call that fair use. You own your copy, but it isn't a license to create copies for everyone else in the world a la napster. The proponents of napster seems to think that just because you can, you should. Obviously if you can there will be many that will. That does not make it technically legal under the law.
Anyway, napster isn't arguing any of this. They know it is illegal. They are arguing that they aren't doing the trading so they aren't doing anything illegal. This is clearly a case of technology outstripping law (although the DMCA somewhat covers it). Napster knows what they are doing is matching people up who are primarily trading in illegal music. It's like me setting up a service to allow thousands to download free computer software. I don't think it's too much different.
Most music that people trade there is obviously commercial and copyrighted. The creator of napster knew this when creating it. It would not be popular at all if it only had the music that was on, say mp3.com, and a bunch of bootlegs. If their intent was to really stay within the law, they would ban all users trading copyrighted material of which there is no permission for mass redistribution.
First, thanks for the ad hominem bull shit. It's not my fault you cant follow a simple string.
"Wrong. Illegal copying is not 'stealing'"
Under copyright law it is, especially given the scale. Fair use obviously doesn't apply in this case.
"This isn't about enforcement. This is about the moral status of data copying"
The moral status of data copying... blah blah nonsense. There is already sufficient law to establish the fact that fair use is limited. You sending mp3's to 3000 people on the internet is not fair use. You giving your friend an mp3 or cd is fine. They can't enforce it anyway, so there is no point. This is similar to software. You letting your friend borrow a game is fine. Letting him install it and give it back is obviously illegal, but given the scale, it can't be enforced. You cracking software and sending it to thousands of people on the internet is obviously illegal and on a scale that can be enforced. You haven't stated anything yet that can sufficiently invalidate this claim, unless you think that the owners of copyrighted material are selling you a license to copy and redistribute their material.
"This is your conclusion? The justification for law is its ease of use within the context of specific circumstance? "
Napster exists solely to profit from software that makes easy the proliferation of illegally copied music on the internet. This is on a scale much larger than fair use.
Under fair use and in limited quantity, obviously. Law can't define this as such, because you're obviously going to share your music with more than one person in many cases.
Copyright protection is only about controlling general trends in copying which subvert revenue. They do deserve to be recompensed for their time and effort because they produced these products. If general trends in piracy arise that subvert this intention, then law or precedent could then be set to stop these trends. You don't have a natural right to free information you know.
If you're talking about giving a copy of your CD to people on napster, that would be a resounding NO. Fair use only goes so far.
"It is absolutely wrong to reduce public freedoms for the sake of an individual's profit."
Blah blah, and we should have digital books on the internet and freely available to everyone, because free stuff is freedom, and free stuff is RIGHT -- because I want it.
Freedom is not an absolute. Freedom is not free of coercion. Freedom is balance. Metallica is seeking balance from their personally perceived injust activity (i.e., thousands of people trading their music for free).
"All economic arguments are secondary to that."
Nonsense. They create it, they own rights to replication. Fair use obviously comes into play, but not in this case.
Slashdot Mirror
True, but looking at the average consumer, IP holders do have the means to stifle this trend. If they sue every acting company and break up every large organized network facilitating IP piracy, it will be relegated to a much lower probable percentage. Other methods such as FTP and IRC have barriers, namely technical understanding and underground status. Distributed network replacements also suffer the underground problem. Pirate music selection is then many orders of magnitude lower than that which is available on services such as napster. It's certainly not sufficient to prevent such trends altogether = but there are clearly available methods.
"Of course, 'inspired' news writing is not the point; after all, isn't news writing -- at least in the big news dailies -- targeted at, say, a 7th grade reading level?"
Yes, this is obvious given the business exists to profit. The larger the audience, the more money is raked in. This is achieved through the lowest common denominator. This is why we have papers like the daily sun in local incarnations and distribution with a "sunshine girl" on page 2, all over the world.
That doesn't mean there aren't exceptions though. In Canada, where I live, the globe and mail, a national paper, is fairly decent. Actually, it's probably equivalent to the New York Times. WSJ also does fairly accurate reporting, I think.
"I mean, I can remember watching Walter Cronkite sitting behind his anchorman's desk and report each night about Vietnam -- and I can remember the sense that, well, I could 'trust' Cronkite. "That's the way it is," he'd always say, and I believed him."
Taking news for truth is obviously a logical fallacy. Any thought regarding the method in which information is gathered and disseminated, including analysis of corporate hierarchy and business model will make this clear. This is the main reason for the proliferation of "media studies" in middle and secondary schools (not that it's taught right or has any lasting effect).
Yeah, it's a tragedy that I can't just build a house on a random plot of land.
Natives in america had abundant resources. Due to this, there was less conflict and inter community interaction - and, hence, less scientific and technical innovation. Communal systems only work under said and other conditions.
But yes, Ayn Rand can lick my cock and balls (for reasons unrelated to this conversation).
The record companies also provide bands with dollars and resources to record their works. They aren't going anywhere.
Probably about one tenth of one percent of music on mp3.com is bearable for more than a few seconds.
Books further knowledge - even if used for entertainment.
Music is almost purely relegated to entertainment.
Yeah, and governments will fall and we will all live in happy anarchy, yadda yadda the end
whoops, just slipped and hit my head on cement
Yeah, and I could vote for a random brain dead dog in an alley too.
Ignorance feeds on ignorance.
Why the hell is it troubling? If it is, we better kill all those akamai schmucks.
They own the network. They have the right to control traffic on the network. If you don't like it, you go somewhere else.
Eh Ronald.
A small lumber or mining town. The government declares conservation on much of the land. The town becomes poor because it relied on one or two industries. The people get angry because they can't use this land. There is dichotomy in government; They are responsible for the qualms of the people in their states. They are also responsible for the environment and sustained resources (well, at least if they need any votes from environmentalists to win their next election).
I am stunned by your lucid statement of truth.
Let's fuck. Bend over.
YAY, More <a href="http://www.forum2000.org/matrix/forum_hof_a<nobr>n<wbr></wbr></nobr> swers?keepcookie=125&lm=952490339">Ayn Rand</a>.
Debian and FreeBSD. Easy to secure. Easy to use packaging systems that allow you to avoid thinking.
This is a troll. If not, I suggest you try thinking next time.
This is my primary reason for not using nix platforms for my primary desktop. If this point were rectified, I believe linux would become much more popular in the near term future, before someone else releases another codec tied to windows (and possibly mac).
"You could say that about ICQ as well"
No, this is false. Napster is equivalent to a large controlled distributed file system. ICQ contains file transfer capabilities. Unless you have 3000 people on your ICQ list, or there is some ICQ fileserver and plugin with ICQ wide search capabilities, I do not see the connection.
"But where do you draw the line?"
When it is organized, traceable, and possible to inhibit. When it is a corporation this is a definite.
Not really. Open napster. Look, I'm downloading copyrighted music.
Ok, so why would this 1000 dollar cd player make the sound so much better?
I'm obviously no audiophile, but either are most people.
Obviously you own that copy. You can convert it, splice it, dice it, remix it to your hearts content. However, there is a gray area at a point where you start copying your cd and giving it to friends. Lets say you create 500 copies and give it to your friends. I'd hardly call that fair use. You own your copy, but it isn't a license to create copies for everyone else in the world a la napster. The proponents of napster seems to think that just because you can, you should. Obviously if you can there will be many that will. That does not make it technically legal under the law.
Anyway, napster isn't arguing any of this. They know it is illegal. They are arguing that they aren't doing the trading so they aren't doing anything illegal. This is clearly a case of technology outstripping law (although the DMCA somewhat covers it). Napster knows what they are doing is matching people up who are primarily trading in illegal music. It's like me setting up a service to allow thousands to download free computer software. I don't think it's too much different.
Most music that people trade there is obviously commercial and copyrighted. The creator of napster knew this when creating it. It would not be popular at all if it only had the music that was on, say mp3.com, and a bunch of bootlegs. If their intent was to really stay within the law, they would ban all users trading copyrighted material of which there is no permission for mass redistribution.
First, thanks for the ad hominem bull shit. It's not my fault you cant follow a simple string.
... blah blah nonsense. There is already sufficient law to establish the fact that fair use is limited. You sending mp3's to 3000 people on the internet is not fair use. You giving your friend an mp3 or cd is fine. They can't enforce it anyway, so there is no point. This is similar to software. You letting your friend borrow a game is fine. Letting him install it and give it back is obviously illegal, but given the scale, it can't be enforced. You cracking software and sending it to thousands of people on the internet is obviously illegal and on a scale that can be enforced. You haven't stated anything yet that can sufficiently invalidate this claim, unless you think that the owners of copyrighted material are selling you a license to copy and redistribute their material.
"Wrong. Illegal copying is not 'stealing'"
Under copyright law it is, especially given the scale. Fair use obviously doesn't apply in this case.
"This isn't about enforcement. This is about the moral status of data copying"
The moral status of data copying
"This is your conclusion? The justification for law is its ease of use within the context of specific circumstance? "
Napster exists solely to profit from software that makes easy the proliferation of illegally copied music on the internet. This is on a scale much larger than fair use.
When I buy something, do I own it?
Sure
And if I own it, can I copy it?
Sure
And do I own the copy?
Sure
And can I resell/give away the copy?
Under fair use and in limited quantity, obviously. Law can't define this as such, because you're obviously going to share your music with more than one person in many cases.
Copyright protection is only about controlling general trends in copying which subvert revenue. They do deserve to be recompensed for their time and effort because they produced these products. If general trends in piracy arise that subvert this intention, then law or precedent could then be set to stop these trends. You don't have a natural right to free information you know.
If you're talking about giving a copy of your CD to people on napster, that would be a resounding NO. Fair use only goes so far.
"It is absolutely wrong to reduce public freedoms for the sake of an individual's profit."
Blah blah, and we should have digital books on the internet and freely available to everyone, because free stuff is freedom, and free stuff is RIGHT -- because I want it.
Freedom is not an absolute. Freedom is not free of coercion. Freedom is balance. Metallica is seeking balance from their personally perceived injust activity (i.e., thousands of people trading their music for free).
"All economic arguments are secondary to that."
Nonsense. They create it, they own rights to replication. Fair use obviously comes into play, but not in this case.
Yeah, I'm sure Mr. Hubbard had an amazing omiscient control of all knowledge, bestowed upon him by little green aliens.
I agree and have reiterated this many times in my other posts.