And then Konami drove the nail through the heart of coin operated gaming... The abomination of videogaming known as DDR served as an outlet for wannabe Travoltas to flail around wildly and quickly made the house of tank simulators and street fighting a haven for lamos..
Oh what's wrong, somebody bitching because they couldn't AAA Sakura on Heavy reversed with stelth mod at 8x original speed?
The United States Supreme Court unanimously confirmed
that using this service to trade copyrighted material is illegal.
Copying copyrighted motion picture and music files
using unauthorized peer-to-peer services is illegal and is
prosecuted by copyright owners.
There are legal services for downloading music and movies.
This service is not one of them.
This seems more appropriate (not to mention accurate):
The U. S Supreme Court has not declared the use of file-sharing services illegal, nor the trade of files that do not violate copyright laws to be illegal, only that the promotion of file-sharing products for copyright infringement, or violating copyright laws by sharing copyrighted works without permission to be illegal. Copying copyrighted motion picture and music files in a way that does not constitute fair use is what is illegal, and using peer-to-peer services is not illegal and unless it is being used illegally and can not by any means be prosecuted by copyright owners in this context.
You people really think we are dumb?
There are legal services for downloading music and movies. These services can and are one of them for independent artists the industry has shunned for it's own power hungry greed trip.
I dunno, I kida don't like the crudeness in his post, but I did see the same things that the AC pointed out - just because it repeats does not automatically make it a troll you know.
To be technical though, it's downloading music that is copyrighted without permission from the copyright holder that is illegal - there are copyrighted works that are legal to share. ^_^
At the end of the day you're still playing loose-and-fast with Other People's Property
This is a moot point, but I am not going to debate this since I quite frankly find it redundant for both sides.
By law you're NOT allowed to freely copy and redistribute copyrighted materials.
To be technical though, it's downloading music that is copyrighted without permission from the copyright holdert - yes there is a difference, the difference that allows me to share independent music that is copyrighted because the holder allows it. ^_^ Just being anal.
Just because we can all agree that music industry is evil and stacked against the artist, does not mean you're helping the artist by denying them even the measely few cents they would have earned on a CD sale.
The "lost sale" argument? If so, it is my opinion that this argument in general (not to individual/. users that use it) bases itself around too many assumptions.
The problem with your argument is that it is based upon faulty backing.
If you could get it for free, then you -wouldn't- otherwise have to pay for it.
This is not true all of the time however, much your other definition of having to pay for it ("But If you DO have to pay for it (ie: There is no legal way to get it for free)" since these are conditions that always have exceptions to them that prevent them from being a sturdy definition for debating purposes.
We're talking about using a product/service for free, that you would otherwise have to pay for.
There is the problem though, "using a product/service for free, that you would otherwise have to pay for" in itself is too broad of a concept to judge outright, since there are illegal ways to do this, there are also legal ways to do this as well, believe it or not... even though this is not what we are talking about here, I think in debates like this specifics matter.
Ah, but it isn't easy to define lost sale, as logic implies that despite the impossibility to get it correct per-person, whether or not that somebody buys something after getting it for free is still up in the air as a 2 way street. I am one who buys after downloading songs, for example.
You can argue that they might not have otherwise bought the games, but if that is true, why were they getting copies of them?
Nice red herring there, wanting to buy something and wanting to have something are not synonomous, at least not all the time. You can not want to buy something, but still get that same thing later, legally or not.
Atari took Activision to court, claiming that the company didn't have the right to develop Atari games. Atari lost, and more companies decided to follow in Activision's footsteps, creating the concept of third-party developers. It was a defining moment for video games."
If only something like this would happen to Konami, instead making their overly borad patent on the DDR game pad design less valid so that there can be some real competition in the dance simulation game genre instead of it being an unsteady (legal-wise) battle bwteeen In the Groove, Dance DanceRevolution, and Pump it Up.
I smell bullshit. I mean, I think they given the wording of the letter are still going to try and gain absolute control of distibuting lyrics and tabs for music through the industry speak.
Does anybody remember George Orwell's 1984, where war was used as an excuse for the kind of survellience that they have? (warfare, and possible warfare and overthrowing of govt. with the spread of ideas) Where thoughts, actions, and word of mouth were closely watched?
Are you honestly suggesting that the threat of terrorism merrits that kind of future?
Terrorism is something that should be dealt with, but dammit, it is being over-used... every new TV special or documentary tries to fit in something about terrorism, now people are using it to guilt trip us into sacrificing our rights and freedoms... terrorism this... terrorism that..... TERRORISM isn't a new thing, it just happened in a way recently (4 years ago) that caught us off gaurd. We have to find a way to fight terrorism and prevent too much paranoia from allowing our rights to be taken away
Somebody please explain to me how the filtering they ask for will not somehow block legal files (many songs sharethe same title, either that or filter that are based on individual words will basically kill P2P alltogether by filtering everything, legal or not), and can be dodged by title renaming and/or other means? And please don't pull the "If it's legal why would ti be on P2P" or "How would you know that song is on the network in the first place" lines out of your ass, answer the question.
Talk about legal bullshit.... IIRC, copying copyrighted goods in the case mentioned here does not come close to falling under harboring stolen goods... copyrigh infringing maybe, but maybe they have their heads up their asses too deep.
It is shit like this that George Orwell warned us about.
my nephew has now internalized that meme - downloads are like shoplifting to him - which is to say wrong).
MP>Wrong much like the analogy that the RIAA spoon fed your nephew, although indirectly.
At least be consistent idiots when rating the ESRB
on
The ESRB Gets An 'F'
·
· Score: 1
It is funny how they go after some games, and not others.. like the violence and language in GTA for example, and not against the explciit songs in games like Dance Dance Revolution, like "Blow my Whistle, Bitch!" which anybody with a brain can be lead to believe that the song circulates around a guy asking a girl for a blowjob. C'mon, if you are going to go all superiority blowhard, at least do it evenly.... I give this group an F anyways for lack of consistency, Alack of logical and rational thinking and logic, and political motive cover-up.
And throughout the post you didn't show how it didn't help at all. Not that this isn't a good argument, nut neither is just posting "it doesn't help, it doesn't help I do this if I want to do something" without showing why that other one isn't good.
was disgusted when I watched a movie in the cinema and before it started they showed that copyright notice that said 'copyright theft helps terrorism'
Not to mention the facts that piracy is not "copyright theft" as they retain the copyrights to the work. More pullshit and propaganda on their parts. ^_^
This is nothing more than an opinion. Period. Factually, piracy is not stealing, but either infringement of copyrights or the sea related kind, which I am too arsed to pull up right now.
Piracy = copyright infringement = COPYING and DUPLICATING against the wishes of the copyright holder copyrighted works.
Unless you can prove otherwise through coherent reasoning and logical arguments, you are only a RIAA parroting troll.
People pirating software/music/movies are NOT customers.
Hmmm... talk about black and white reasoning... so by your logic, if I pirate something and then buy it later (Don't give me the "buy why would you buy it if you have it for free already..." Fuck you I bought it anyways, sorry it bursts your narrow RIAA logic... ^_^), I am not a consumer by definition just because of the pirating? I consumed the product, so how am I not a sconsumer given the example of what I do?P>
They are stealing.
You are only saying this and haven't backed it up with reasoning... you are starting to sound like a troll, and I think you should go to back up your opinion with reasoning right about now.
They have NO RIGHTS to take other people's property.
I don't even know how to properly rebute this one it is quite lame (granted my attempted rebute would be even lamer). Take VS copy arguments anybody? Especially since you apply physically limitative statements to "objects: (1's and 0's, DATA) that can be copied infinitely without property loss to that person.
Finally, I hope that one day all these people advocating striping other of their rights have the very same thing done to them. Maybe then those people will understand how very wrong it is.
Not only do you make parritive statements that are unbacked up by fact or otherwise wrong, but you also make sweeping statements that don't accurately portray a good proportion of those posting in this topic. I do not think that most people (except for the DIE-HARDS) think that all copyrights should be abolished.. As for your reasoning about it happening to those who don't live in your fantacy world... How does copying something illegally strip somebody of their rights when they have the powers ("rights") to stop it or try to control it? If you ask me, it is those who are sitting on their asses whining that are loosing their rights because they are not using them.
The problem with this is one that might not yet have an easy to implement solution: How would you do it?
There is filtering by artist, but then the possibility of other things involving that artist that aren't illegal (if there are, of course) could be blocked.
Filtering by title is another thing, but there are many different songs with the same title that the possibility of blocking an independent's work with the same title bo accident...
The problem really isn't coming up with a solution... but impkementing it so it only blocks illegal content without interference to legal content in any way.
Congress passed the DMCA a long while back (a few years now, IIRC). It's obviously withstood the test of time; if there was something illegal about it, the Supreme Court would have already overturned it.
Fallical (odds are that isn't a word, but whatever) reasoning... I know this is a bad example for copyright issues, but Jim Crow laws enforcing segregation were around for almost 100 years before it was ended, and there was a lot wrong with it... just because there is something wrong does not mean that something should have been done already to prove it wrong or illegal... it takes more than that, escpecially when corporations are in control of our laws..
So, I don't see where anyone can complain.
It's called reading the article (RTFA), and doing your own research to get the other side. I can think of many things wrong with it The law has been used to impede fair use, for one thing that might bnot have been mentioned here.
Obviously the only people who have problems with it are the software/movie pirates, and piracy is bad, right?
RIAA logic... fair and square consumers are also impacted by the DMCA, people who write software are also affected... so no, this fallicious reasoning does not hold up.
We should all just try to get along with the DMCA instead of constantly badmouthing it. It's obviously a valuable and appropriate used piece of legislation.
Troll. There is no other expination for this... the use of parroting RIAA arguments... and faulty logic.
Oh wait, couldn't this post be satire? A parody of the **AA's logic? It does reek of sarcasm when looked at it that way... I am confused now.
And yeah, yeah, I know that legally "copying is theft", "it's the same as stealling a car" and all that, b
Actually, legally, copying is not theft (if it goes against the wishes of the copyright holder/is not public domain, it's copyright infringement), and it being worse than stealing a car is a moral opinion, despie what the RIAA wants you to think. Maybe it is worse in terms of penalties, but whether it is worse in any other way is an opinion at best and can not be forced onto others unless they are able to believe it too.
One is the bumbling record industry, which has been seeking to raise prices in the fledgling legal downloading market even as it continues to bleed from free, illegal downloading...
Am I the only one who sees this statement as falsely implying that all free downloads are ilelgal as opposed to those not authorized by the copyright holder/on works in the public domain, or is it just me?
Wrong. The people who worked hard to make the music people were getting for free were deprived of sales.
Sales aren't property, they are transactions or exchanges... in this case ones that have not even happened yet, and might not, even though that possibility is still in existance, you don't know (neither do I).
I take issue with people who think it is morally OK to take other people's work without their permission.
I could start a whole argument over "take" vurses "Copy" but I think that would be a REALLY bad idea both karma and reputation wise, so I will purge all of that from my brain right now... but I will say this, Beethove isn't giving concent on all these covers of his work, and it is morally acceptible... maybe that is because there are certain exceptions like fair use, and the expiration of copyrights that play a factor in that too though... ~_~ nevermind, I'm just about to make an ass out of myself.
The issue with Napster and all of the other piracy networks is that it results in the artists (and recording studios and...) being paid less for the work they have created.
I assume you mean networks used for piracy, right? Given the legal implementations for them that can be sough and all.... anyways, I disagree and think the problem really is about control. The lables can't possibly give a shit about those they claim to be representing (where does the lawsuit money go? How much th artists recieve from a single CD?)
Slashdot Mirror
Oh what's wrong, somebody bitching because they couldn't AAA Sakura on Heavy reversed with stelth mod at 8x original speed?
This seems more appropriate (not to mention accurate):
I dunno, I kida don't like the crudeness in his post, but I did see the same things that the AC pointed out - just because it repeats does not automatically make it a troll you know.
To be technical though, it's downloading music that is copyrighted without permission from the copyright holder that is illegal - there are copyrighted works that are legal to share. ^_^
This is a moot point, but I am not going to debate this since I quite frankly find it redundant for both sides.
To be technical though, it's downloading music that is copyrighted without permission from the copyright holdert - yes there is a difference, the difference that allows me to share independent music that is copyrighted because the holder allows it. ^_^ Just being anal.
The "lost sale" argument? If so, it is my opinion that this argument in general (not to individual /. users that use it) bases itself around too many assumptions.
The problem with your argument is that it is based upon faulty backing.
This is not true all of the time however, much your other definition of having to pay for it ("But If you DO have to pay for it (ie: There is no legal way to get it for free)" since these are conditions that always have exceptions to them that prevent them from being a sturdy definition for debating purposes.
There is the problem though, "using a product/service for free, that you would otherwise have to pay for" in itself is too broad of a concept to judge outright, since there are illegal ways to do this, there are also legal ways to do this as well, believe it or not... even though this is not what we are talking about here, I think in debates like this specifics matter.
Ah, but it isn't easy to define lost sale, as logic implies that despite the impossibility to get it correct per-person, whether or not that somebody buys something after getting it for free is still up in the air as a 2 way street. I am one who buys after downloading songs, for example.
Nice red herring there, wanting to buy something and wanting to have something are not synonomous, at least not all the time. You can not want to buy something, but still get that same thing later, legally or not.
If only something like this would happen to Konami, instead making their overly borad patent on the DDR game pad design less valid so that there can be some real competition in the dance simulation game genre instead of it being an unsteady (legal-wise) battle bwteeen In the Groove, Dance DanceRevolution, and Pump it Up.
I smell bullshit. I mean, I think they given the wording of the letter are still going to try and gain absolute control of distibuting lyrics and tabs for music through the industry speak.
Does anybody remember George Orwell's 1984, where war was used as an excuse for the kind of survellience that they have? (warfare, and possible warfare and overthrowing of govt. with the spread of ideas) Where thoughts, actions, and word of mouth were closely watched?
Are you honestly suggesting that the threat of terrorism merrits that kind of future?
Terrorism is something that should be dealt with, but dammit, it is being over-used... every new TV special or documentary tries to fit in something about terrorism, now people are using it to guilt trip us into sacrificing our rights and freedoms... terrorism this... terrorism that..... TERRORISM isn't a new thing, it just happened in a way recently (4 years ago) that caught us off gaurd. We have to find a way to fight terrorism and prevent too much paranoia from allowing our rights to be taken away
Yeah, ripping off the flamebait and making the provider look like the ass. ^_^
Somebody please explain to me how the filtering they ask for will not somehow block legal files (many songs sharethe same title, either that or filter that are based on individual words will basically kill P2P alltogether by filtering everything, legal or not), and can be dodged by title renaming and/or other means? And please don't pull the "If it's legal why would ti be on P2P" or "How would you know that song is on the network in the first place" lines out of your ass, answer the question.
Talk about legal bullshit.... IIRC, copying copyrighted goods in the case mentioned here does not come close to falling under harboring stolen goods... copyrigh infringing maybe, but maybe they have their heads up their asses too deep.
It is shit like this that George Orwell warned us about.
MP>Wrong much like the analogy that the RIAA spoon fed your nephew, although indirectly.
It is funny how they go after some games, and not others.. like the violence and language in GTA for example, and not against the explciit songs in games like Dance Dance Revolution, like "Blow my Whistle, Bitch!" which anybody with a brain can be lead to believe that the song circulates around a guy asking a girl for a blowjob. C'mon, if you are going to go all superiority blowhard, at least do it evenly.... I give this group an F anyways for lack of consistency, Alack of logical and rational thinking and logic, and political motive cover-up.
And throughout the post you didn't show how it didn't help at all. Not that this isn't a good argument, nut neither is just posting "it doesn't help, it doesn't help I do this if I want to do something" without showing why that other one isn't good.
Not to mention the facts that piracy is not "copyright theft" as they retain the copyrights to the work. More pullshit and propaganda on their parts. ^_^
This is nothing more than an opinion. Period. Factually, piracy is not stealing, but either infringement of copyrights or the sea related kind, which I am too arsed to pull up right now. Piracy = copyright infringement = COPYING and DUPLICATING against the wishes of the copyright holder copyrighted works. Unless you can prove otherwise through coherent reasoning and logical arguments, you are only a RIAA parroting troll.
Hmmm... talk about black and white reasoning... so by your logic, if I pirate something and then buy it later (Don't give me the "buy why would you buy it if you have it for free already..." Fuck you I bought it anyways, sorry it bursts your narrow RIAA logic... ^_^), I am not a consumer by definition just because of the pirating? I consumed the product, so how am I not a sconsumer given the example of what I do?P>
You are only saying this and haven't backed it up with reasoning... you are starting to sound like a troll, and I think you should go to back up your opinion with reasoning right about now.
I don't even know how to properly rebute this one it is quite lame (granted my attempted rebute would be even lamer). Take VS copy arguments anybody? Especially since you apply physically limitative statements to "objects: (1's and 0's, DATA) that can be copied infinitely without property loss to that person.
Not only do you make parritive statements that are unbacked up by fact or otherwise wrong, but you also make sweeping statements that don't accurately portray a good proportion of those posting in this topic. I do not think that most people (except for the DIE-HARDS) think that all copyrights should be abolished.. As for your reasoning about it happening to those who don't live in your fantacy world... How does copying something illegally strip somebody of their rights when they have the powers ("rights") to stop it or try to control it? If you ask me, it is those who are sitting on their asses whining that are loosing their rights because they are not using them.
The problem with this is one that might not yet have an easy to implement solution: How would you do it?
There is filtering by artist, but then the possibility of other things involving that artist that aren't illegal (if there are, of course) could be blocked.
Filtering by title is another thing, but there are many different songs with the same title that the possibility of blocking an independent's work with the same title bo accident...
The problem really isn't coming up with a solution... but impkementing it so it only blocks illegal content without interference to legal content in any way.
Fallical (odds are that isn't a word, but whatever) reasoning... I know this is a bad example for copyright issues, but Jim Crow laws enforcing segregation were around for almost 100 years before it was ended, and there was a lot wrong with it... just because there is something wrong does not mean that something should have been done already to prove it wrong or illegal... it takes more than that, escpecially when corporations are in control of our laws..
It's called reading the article (RTFA), and doing your own research to get the other side. I can think of many things wrong with it The law has been used to impede fair use, for one thing that might bnot have been mentioned here.
RIAA logic... fair and square consumers are also impacted by the DMCA, people who write software are also affected... so no, this fallicious reasoning does not hold up.
Troll. There is no other expination for this... the use of parroting RIAA arguments... and faulty logic.
Oh wait, couldn't this post be satire? A parody of the **AA's logic? It does reek of sarcasm when looked at it that way... I am confused now.
Am I the only one who sees this statement as falsely implying that all free downloads are ilelgal as opposed to those not authorized by the copyright holder/on works in the public domain, or is it just me?
Sorry, I already don't shoplift. ^_^