Hate to break it to you man but "Copy songs from friends and family" is infringing and not legal.
However-- the record songs from the radio is legal (done it myself). Hard to get a good copy with the DJ's talking. My XM radio is locked down-- no way to record from it.
If they make too many cars, those cars are going to get cheaper.
The huge glut of entertainment that has developed means that 99% of artists won't get a dime for their work.
Huge corporations that have the backing of the government will.
But even they are seeing enormous drops in revenue (and not because of piracy-- but because the middle class has no money left (the rich have it all) and after you spend your $300 to $1200 a year on entertainment, you are done- even IF the government kills people who infringe- no one except the wealthy can legally fill even a small IPOD).
I own a car, model "E". It has an alternator different not only from cars made by each of the dozen or so other car makers, but also different from the other cars by that manufacturer and ALSO different than previous years for the same model.
Why in the world does the manufacturer do this?
We pay a lot of money to have a lot of different alternators when there could be a few standard ones. I can't see how an alternator is different than a "Screw" or "Nail".
There are lots and lots of custom parts. Why are we still doing this? It would be like computers having custom fans instead of just a few kinds of fans (and I know some that did customize back in the late 90's and when the part broke, you were just hosed.)
>> People wouldn't infringe if the entertainment industry were not wealthy and the costs of material was closer to the cost of manufacture.
> At best that assertion is unsupported by evidence.
It could be people would greedily never spend a dime even tho it took them more of their own time and money to obtain the material.
However, it is more likely that if the product was reasonably priced and easy to get (say a long a cable TV model- $50 a month and you can check out anything and play it/read it/ watch it) then people would almost certainly do that.
>> RIAA and the copyright side have no moral high ground
> How does that change the situation any? Do you believe courts should legislate morality?
If they have no moral high ground, there is no way the general populace will support enforcement of their laws. Just as 55mph, Prohibition, and even current Drug laws are broken by huge numbers of people all the time.
>> It would be different if their prices were reasonable
> If there prices are not reasonable, why do people choose to pay them? Above you take issue with what you feel is unjustifiably high compensation for the author of a book series. Why would so many voluntarily pay so much if it was unreasonable?
It depends- I have friends who purchase some authors books but (with no compensation to RIAA/Publishers or the Author) loan other others books, library/borrow other books, used book buy/sell other books, and infringe other books, record other songs/shows while buying some.
I started off neutral but realized if you are making a billion dollars for a book, then many other authors are being prevented from having a living and you are making a completely unreasonable amount of money. It is legal- just like all the CEO's an sports stars are legal. But it's not right. There should be a hundred baseball teams, and CEO's should face pressure from indian and chinese CEO's, and the pay for books which reflects costs of years ago when it took a lot more effort to edit and lay out a book and the audiences were much smaller.
It's a free country- and they are free to try sell their product what they want to for. But if they have a bitter audience (which in my case is from a decade of reading about "Forever less a day" Valenti and other rich corporations scheming for yet another way to pin me down, lock things up, extend copyright to forever, etc) then it will touch on their product.
I started off fairly neutral a decade ago and have become more radical over time. Maybe it's the bad economy with all the rich bankers walking away with a hundred million bucks, laying off thousands of people and replacing them with h1b's. I'm getting seriously pissed off at everything over the last couple years. The respect I had for the system is completely gone. It's not even remotely fair. 1% of the people have 95% of the wealth and 70% of the income now.
It's not theft-- just like 1st degree murder by killing someone with a car isn't the same as 2nd degree murder by killing someone with a car isn't the same as vehicular manslaughter (even tho the result is the same in all three cases - the intent is different).
It's copyright infringement. And it is mostly at a misdemeanor level being punished worse than a lot of violent crimes (mostly because RIAA has a lot more money to bribe lawmakers with to get these obscenely unreasonable laws passed).
If I steal a CD from a store, I am on the hook for a $5.00 to $19.99 theft. If I infringe a single song, they can destroy my entire life.
---
Now, I like magnatune -- I've purchased songs there. But, if I download the song (which they let me do) and I do not donate for it, how is that different than TPB? Part of what makes the system work is developing fans for your work. Attacking your fans is probably not the best way to go about it. In fact, lot of people maintain lists of RIAA producers and refuse to purchase them-- and it is *EASY* to legally record my own personal copy of the songs and not pay for them. No infringement- you just need it played one time on TV, or on the radio, or on an internet Radio station and you have it. And that was just as true back in the 70's when I recorded songs on my cassette and in the 80's and 90's when I recorded shows and movies on my VHS and later DVD's.
If TPB is truly shut down, it will not change the fact that almost none of the public can afford to fill the smallest ipod with songs at the price musicians want. You won't see more sales, you just have a enormous numbers looking like hungry squirrels for the *next* way to get your material after they spend the $300 or so they have to spend. And they'll find it.
What you want is people to like you (like i like Blue October which I got pirated, liked a lot, so then I went to their concerts, bought their t-shirts, etc. and who I would have never heard of without pirating-- and it wasn't p2p- it was good old sneakernet.)
The fact is there is a HUGE glut of entertainment out there. The fair price of that entertainment is probably nearly zero and it is only being held up through very artificial means that will not last.
People wouldn't infringe if the entertainment industry were not wealthy and the costs of material was closer to the cost of manufacture.
There is no way the author of the harry potter series merits a billion dollars for writing 7 books.
She would have been just as likely to write the 7th book if she was getting 10 million per book.
The system is broken and people have no respect for it. You need the respect of the people for laws to work.
I wish I was lucky enough that the work which I do continued to get me compensation 45 years after I died. And I'm bitter and disrespectful of anyone that has had bogus laws passed. There is legal and there is moral. RIAA and the copyright side have no moral high ground. It would be different if their prices were reasonable and the terms of copyright were reasonable. But neither is.
As long as you have no respect, you can put lots of individuals in jail but your copyright will be infringed-- and not just for idle consumption but actively as a way of undercutting and resisting you.
Ripping off stuff from corporations is bad... they bribe the government to keep you in line.
But if you are ripping off the government of its much desired tax revenue, there is a looooong history of the government hopping on your neck with jack boots. They just want the money. Perhaps you can pay the 4% tax while still downloading and not paying the corporations... Sort of like the MJ tax stamps.
Management would rather staff sit and do nothing for a week than spend a week fixing a "worthless 1% improvement".
We waste about 4 months a year on paperwork, excessive testing and risk mitigation, and "waiting for a REAL project with a BIG payoff to come along".
And then we waste 2-3 months when executives arbitrarily move around schedules and cancel projects. Probably 15% productivity when I worked at small to mid-size companies.
>> Maybe the opportunity for the media companies EVER winning has now passed and they'll never be able to anymore - who knows?
What's online for free.. TOS Star Trek Battle Star Galactica Heroes Lost Burn Notice Chuck
Just off the top of my head. Pretty sure many others are these days.
With a flash capture tool, you can keep them.
I was very happy to find AOL offering high quality versions of all the old MTV Videos (including HOOK!!!) online. I played them all and now i have them all on my hard drives and some DVD's.
A lot of shows are not worth buying on DVD because one viewing is your lifetime fill of them.
I'm about ready to kill DISH network. They've gotten way to expensive (again).
I put out the green box rat poison and that was it.
I've had to do it twice in 5 years. I typically put out a box where the dogs can't get to it in the fall and replace it yearly. Most years it is partially eaten but some years nothing.
* Discrimination against blind users * Disregard for fair use in copyright law * Dinosaur-like worldviews * Dinosaur-like brains * Dinosaur-Raptor like Suprise * Disparate and fanatical devotion to the pope
But come on- a screenshot generated on my computer as evidence?
I could generate a screenshot on my computer of you doing anything.
RIAA's evidence is so weak for civil trials that they frequently withdraw if the person actually goes to court. They are really about extorting $3,000 from people who would probably have to spend $5,000 to defend themselves. Even tho they would successfully defend themselves it is not worth it.
It's legalized extortion and the game is starting to fall apart for RIAA as judges, juries, and lawyers are finally getting educated about the facts and are becoming aware of RIAA's abusive Z(and illegal) behavior.
And that is what needs to happen. People need to learn just how easy it is to put things on someone else's computer. And to learn how easy it is to spoof someone else. And how unreliable screenshots are.
---
Those were cheap. It will be a bit more expensive to actually execute a subpeona, to get the sheriffs to confiscate the person's computer, to perform forensics on the computer in a legally valid environment and that means a clear chain of custody-- the computer must be locked up when it isn't being analyzed and while it is being analyzed, it has to be by a neutral party, not a Media-sentry type party.
And that means when Riaa is wrong, the countersuit is going to sting like hell. And they are frequently wrong. They sue dead people, they sue people who do not own computers-- with so many actual infringers (thousands, tens of thousands, millions?), I'm astonished how terrible their track record is. They are not doing any due diligence at all.
It's like saying "a person with red hair assaulted me" and that's proof enough to launch a $3k civil suit against you (who have red hair). Sure you can defend yourself-- but it is too expensive to actually do so.
Slashdot Mirror
Lol.
Hate to break it to you man but "Copy songs from friends and family" is infringing and not legal.
However-- the record songs from the radio is legal (done it myself). Hard to get a good copy with the DJ's talking. My XM radio is locked down-- no way to record from it.
If they make too many cars, those cars are going to get cheaper.
The huge glut of entertainment that has developed means that 99% of artists won't get a dime for their work.
Huge corporations that have the backing of the government will.
But even they are seeing enormous drops in revenue (and not because of piracy-- but because the middle class has no money left (the rich have it all) and after you spend your $300 to $1200 a year on entertainment, you are done- even IF the government kills people who infringe- no one except the wealthy can legally fill even a small IPOD).
Spanking is certainly a hit with the traditional crowd.
Actually, it is be more like running a service that connects wheelchair robbers with people who will push them into stores to rob them.
You maintain a list of addresses of people willing to push them and provide those addresses to would be robbers.
I think you are missing my point.
I own a car, model "E". It has an alternator different not only from cars made by each of the dozen or so other car makers, but also different from the other cars by that manufacturer and ALSO different than previous years for the same model.
Why in the world does the manufacturer do this?
We pay a lot of money to have a lot of different alternators when there could be a few standard ones. I can't see how an alternator is different than a "Screw" or "Nail".
There are lots and lots of custom parts. Why are we still doing this? It would be like computers having custom fans instead of just a few kinds of fans (and I know some that did customize back in the late 90's and when the part broke, you were just hosed.)
What is wrong with my eyes today. First it was the Pornographic Association for the RIAA ad and now I read the headline the same way you did.
There is no reason there are more than 5 or 6 models of A/C units, alternators, etc.
There should be a standard light duty, medium duty, heavy duty model and standard connection brackets.
>> People wouldn't infringe if the entertainment industry were not wealthy and the costs of material was closer to the cost of manufacture.
> At best that assertion is unsupported by evidence.
It could be people would greedily never spend a dime even tho it took them more of their own time and money to obtain the material.
However, it is more likely that if the product was reasonably priced and easy to get (say a long a cable TV model- $50 a month and you can check out anything and play it/read it/ watch it) then people would almost certainly do that.
>> RIAA and the copyright side have no moral high ground
> How does that change the situation any? Do you believe courts should legislate morality?
If they have no moral high ground, there is no way the general populace will support enforcement of their laws. Just as 55mph, Prohibition, and even current Drug laws are broken by huge numbers of people all the time.
>> It would be different if their prices were reasonable
> If there prices are not reasonable, why do people choose to pay them? Above you take issue with what you feel is unjustifiably high compensation for the author of a book series. Why would so many voluntarily pay so much if it was unreasonable?
It depends- I have friends who purchase some authors books but (with no compensation to RIAA/Publishers or the Author) loan other others books, library/borrow other books, used book buy/sell other books, and infringe other books, record other songs/shows while buying some.
I started off neutral but realized if you are making a billion dollars for a book, then many other authors are being prevented from having a living and you are making a completely unreasonable amount of money. It is legal- just like all the CEO's an sports stars are legal. But it's not right. There should be a hundred baseball teams, and CEO's should face pressure from indian and chinese CEO's, and the pay for books which reflects costs of years ago when it took a lot more effort to edit and lay out a book and the audiences were much smaller.
It's a free country- and they are free to try sell their product what they want to for. But if they have a bitter audience (which in my case is from a decade of reading about "Forever less a day" Valenti and other rich corporations scheming for yet another way to pin me down, lock things up, extend copyright to forever, etc) then it will touch on their product.
I started off fairly neutral a decade ago and have become more radical over time. Maybe it's the bad economy with all the rich bankers walking away with a hundred million bucks, laying off thousands of people and replacing them with h1b's. I'm getting seriously pissed off at everything over the last couple years. The respect I had for the system is completely gone. It's not even remotely fair. 1% of the people have 95% of the wealth and 70% of the income now.
You have a reasonable argument.
It's not theft-- just like 1st degree murder by killing someone with a car isn't the same as 2nd degree murder by killing someone with a car isn't the same as vehicular manslaughter (even tho the result is the same in all three cases - the intent is different).
It's copyright infringement. And it is mostly at a misdemeanor level being punished worse than a lot of violent crimes (mostly because RIAA has a lot more money to bribe lawmakers with to get these obscenely unreasonable laws passed).
If I steal a CD from a store, I am on the hook for a $5.00 to $19.99 theft. If I infringe a single song, they can destroy my entire life.
---
Now, I like magnatune -- I've purchased songs there. But, if I download the song (which they let me do) and I do not donate for it, how is that different than TPB? Part of what makes the system work is developing fans for your work. Attacking your fans is probably not the best way to go about it. In fact, lot of people maintain lists of RIAA producers and refuse to purchase them-- and it is *EASY* to legally record my own personal copy of the songs and not pay for them. No infringement- you just need it played one time on TV, or on the radio, or on an internet Radio station and you have it. And that was just as true back in the 70's when I recorded songs on my cassette and in the 80's and 90's when I recorded shows and movies on my VHS and later DVD's.
If TPB is truly shut down, it will not change the fact that almost none of the public can afford to fill the smallest ipod with songs at the price musicians want. You won't see more sales, you just have a enormous numbers looking like hungry squirrels for the *next* way to get your material after they spend the $300 or so they have to spend. And they'll find it.
What you want is people to like you (like i like Blue October which I got pirated, liked a lot, so then I went to their concerts, bought their t-shirts, etc. and who I would have never heard of without pirating-- and it wasn't p2p- it was good old sneakernet.)
The fact is there is a HUGE glut of entertainment out there. The fair price of that entertainment is probably nearly zero and it is only being held up through very artificial means that will not last.
Yes.. that's what I saw first and did a double-take....
Lol.
People wouldn't infringe if the entertainment industry were not wealthy and the costs of material was closer to the cost of manufacture.
There is no way the author of the harry potter series merits a billion dollars for writing 7 books.
She would have been just as likely to write the 7th book if she was getting 10 million per book.
The system is broken and people have no respect for it. You need the respect of the people for laws to work.
I wish I was lucky enough that the work which I do continued to get me compensation 45 years after I died. And I'm bitter and disrespectful of anyone that has had bogus laws passed. There is legal and there is moral. RIAA and the copyright side have no moral high ground. It would be different if their prices were reasonable and the terms of copyright were reasonable. But neither is.
As long as you have no respect, you can put lots of individuals in jail but your copyright will be infringed-- and not just for idle consumption but actively as a way of undercutting and resisting you.
The government puts these on the ballet as "bonds".
Texas passed a huge number of new taxes--- because they were phrased as "sell bonds for new schools", "sell bonds for new services".
The tax happens automatically once the bond is sold-- the bill should really say "raise taxes for this and that"
But it would be voted down then.
Ripping off stuff from corporations is bad... they bribe the government to keep you in line.
But if you are ripping off the government of its much desired tax revenue, there is a looooong history of the government hopping on your neck with jack boots. They just want the money. Perhaps you can pay the 4% tax while still downloading and not paying the corporations... Sort of like the MJ tax stamps.
Bitter!
Party of one...
10 cents over seas and $5 for the same pill here.
Gets really irritating when we are now in the same job market.
If linking to illegal content is illegal then 99% of the internet is illegal.
It's all linked together man. Probably in less than 7 links too.
Not if you have seen them once.
There is more entertainment than we can keep up with these days.
Very few things are good enough to watch again vs something new recommended by friends with similar tastes that you haven't seen/heard/read yet.
Management would rather staff sit and do nothing for a week than spend a week fixing a "worthless 1% improvement".
We waste about 4 months a year on paperwork, excessive testing and risk mitigation, and "waiting for a REAL project with a BIG payoff to come along".
And then we waste 2-3 months when executives arbitrarily move around schedules and cancel projects. Probably 15% productivity when I worked at small to mid-size companies.
>> Maybe the opportunity for the media companies EVER winning has now passed and they'll never be able to anymore - who knows?
What's online for free..
TOS Star Trek
Battle Star Galactica
Heroes
Lost
Burn Notice
Chuck
Just off the top of my head. Pretty sure many others are these days.
With a flash capture tool, you can keep them.
I was very happy to find AOL offering high quality versions of all the old MTV Videos (including HOOK!!!) online. I played them all and now i have them all on my hard drives and some DVD's.
A lot of shows are not worth buying on DVD because one viewing is your lifetime fill of them.
I'm about ready to kill DISH network. They've gotten way to expensive (again).
Have no problem keeping a good ratio. My 1930 copy of Monte Cristo was uploading at almost 20k/sec just last night.
No idea why it is so popular. But 700mb has generated 7gb of ratio.
It's part of a long term experiment.
And yes, as long as I've been a member they have done something to make it worse.
Some of the experiments they have tried have been really hideous.
That was a very confusing post. I'm tired.
I've had to put out boxes on my patio twice.
I put out a box under the hot tub steps once a year (it is warm I guess).
I have outside dogs so I had rats.
I tried everything including traps.
I put out the green box rat poison and that was it.
I've had to do it twice in 5 years. I typically put out a box where the dogs can't get to it in the fall and replace it yearly. Most years it is partially eaten but some years nothing.
Nothing worked except poison.
* a fanatical devotion to the pope..
er..
Among the many reasons that spring to mind:
* Discrimination against blind users
* Disregard for fair use in copyright law
* Dinosaur-like worldviews
* Dinosaur-like brains
* Dinosaur-Raptor like Suprise
* Disparate and fanatical devotion to the pope
But come on- a screenshot generated on my computer as evidence?
I could generate a screenshot on my computer of you doing anything.
RIAA's evidence is so weak for civil trials that they frequently withdraw if the person actually goes to court. They are really about extorting $3,000 from people who would probably have to spend $5,000 to defend themselves. Even tho they would successfully defend themselves it is not worth it.
It's legalized extortion and the game is starting to fall apart for RIAA as judges, juries, and lawyers are finally getting educated about the facts and are becoming aware of RIAA's abusive Z(and illegal) behavior.
And that is what needs to happen. People need to learn just how easy it is to put things on someone else's computer. And to learn how easy it is to spoof someone else. And how unreliable screenshots are.
---
Those were cheap. It will be a bit more expensive to actually execute a subpeona, to get the sheriffs to confiscate the person's computer, to perform forensics on the computer in a legally valid environment and that means a clear chain of custody-- the computer must be locked up when it isn't being analyzed and while it is being analyzed, it has to be by a neutral party, not a Media-sentry type party.
And that means when Riaa is wrong, the countersuit is going to sting like hell. And they are frequently wrong. They sue dead people, they sue people who do not own computers-- with so many actual infringers (thousands, tens of thousands, millions?), I'm astonished how terrible their track record is. They are not doing any due diligence at all.
It's like saying "a person with red hair assaulted me" and that's proof enough to launch a $3k civil suit against you (who have red hair). Sure you can defend yourself-- but it is too expensive to actually do so.