Really? Tell me then, where does it say anything *other* than downloading/sharing songs that you don't have permission to share (*as opposed to those you do) as being ilelgal?
And why isn't it ok? If you have permission to share the music in question, or the music is in public domain/creative commons licensing? It's still downloading musc, so you were saying?
Maybe you keep on getting modded troll not because you have a differing opinion, but that opinion is nothing more than unbacked RIAA parroting... just a thought.
I agree that DRM isn't the whole solution to this problem, but I don't think it should be dismissed outright. What is wrong with wanting money for working?
Irrelivent, how does DRM = profits for sure, and/or how does "hating DRM" == "they shouldn't make profits"? People make money for work not locked by DRM.. somehow the argument seems to be that of an illogical folly that no drm means that people will not make profit from their works when it has in fact been proven otherwise countless times. I can provide proof if challenged on this.
Sorry, I don't shiplift... oh, you mean copying music illegally? There is a factual difference, and putting what you call it in bold doesb't make it any more true. ^_^
Do you lock your car? Do you lock your house?
That is a bad point on certain grounds, the biggest being that locking your car or posessions in the house from being stolen, which means that you don't have that car, or those posessions anymore... hence hwy you file a report when robbed. ^_^ Digital media OTOH, well, you reall can't lock it away from being "stolen" since it can't be stolen, it can be copied an infinite number of times... DRM might try to impede this, but that really isn't a "lock" since unlike the conventional idea, this doesn't prevent total access to the thing in question, just restricts the way it is used. Kind of more like automatic no-speeding devices in cars.
Like the AC said, there are people who do not already know this is implied and are unintentionally mislead to believe something that was not meant to be... in this case all copyrighted works VS copyrighted works being shared without permission.
Re:It's not theft, it's murder...Murder!!!
on
Grokster Shutting Down?
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
[blockquote]...people with content without payment [/blockquote]
Isn't this a tad bit of a broad definition of stealing? Given the legal/free content out there, and the fact that you can legally get music CDs and other "usually pay for" content free from contests, promos, even from your friend giving it to you because he doesn't want/need it, or buying it from a used CD store.
[blockquote]Just be honorable and don't steal. Downloading copyrighted music is not some sort of protest, it is dishonesty pure and simple[/blockquote]
1. The crime is copyright infrignement - illegal copying against the wishes of the holder without the misapropriation of anything in the possession of that person... but we know this will be argued so ignore please...
2. Downloading copyrighted works alone isn't dishonest, and this BS is getting on my nerves. (please read the resto f the post before responding, please!) Internet explorer, Firefox, Linux, Open source software use licensing that relies on copyrighted works - but downloading them is not immoral or illegal since permission was given..... there are also works that are protected by traditional copyright wrks with loose restrictions ALA Creative Commons that can be shared freely or within reason... do you know what that tells you/me/us? That the real dishonesty and/or lawbreaking is sharing copyrighted works wityhout permission. Jeesh, why is this point always ignored? "it doesn't belong to you" doesn't matter "it's copyrighred to blahblahblah" DOESN'T MATYTER "you didn't get permission to share that file!" THAT is what MATTERS!
[blockquote]Grokster Ltd., a leading developer of Internet file-sharing software popular for stealing songs and movies online, agreed Monday to shut down operations...... bans Grokster from participating directly or indirectly in the theft of copyrighted files..."
Nope, Grokster is a popular program for sharing not just movis and music, but software and documents as well as games, some legal, some not... and the flap is over copyright infringement... not theft... copyright infringement..... how many times must these people be fucking around with the language? Either that or the writers who wrote this were stoned and/or suseptible to bull and brainwash.
[blockquote]No matter how you slice it, when you smoke anywhere in public, you ARE imposing on those around you[/blockquote]
So my friend smoking on Mt. Everest affects you? Please explain how. ^_^
[blockquote]No... it's not ignorance. I think the reason that 'regular guys like him' vote against enviornmentalists is because they are bat-shit insane.
Sadly, this isn't the worse things enviornmentalist groups have done. No, that would probably be comparing the owning of pets to owning human slaves. http://www.animalrights.net/archives/year/2005/000 353.html. And that's not even bringing up the Animal Liberation Front (a group of terrorists who firebomb research labs)[/blockquote]
Those would be the actions of animal rights activists, not nessecarily enviromentalists (unless there are enviromentalists that are also ARAs) unless you count the Earth Liberation Front, sister to the Animal Liberation Front who is infamous for the exact same tactics (firebombing, sabotage (some that can put lives at risk) and heavy vandalism, but different targets. Still, the actions of these lunatics makes me sick.... I would love to crash a PETA protest using their tatics and see how they feel about it. ^_^
(* with piracy I mean copying of music/movies over the internet without any money going to the owner of the work).
If you do not exclude the independent music artists or other artists who distribute their stuff for free, this definition is flawed to some degree, since piracy and/or copyright infringement involves copying copyrightwed works without permission from the copyright holder.
^_^
Heads up, it is not theft, get over it..
on
RIAA Sues a Child
·
· Score: 1
Did you even bother to prove that it was theft, or did you just rant endlessly? What is one (or a group's) defintion is not nessecarily, and in this case HARDLY what the law calls theft. The simple fact of the matter is that this crime is prosecuted under copyright infringement, and like all the other delludes here who believe that there is no point but justification for posting this ideal, let me remind you that this is all strictly on what the law calls it and correcting a factuall error (not an opinion). Copyright Infringement is illegal, not too many people who argue it isn't theft would say otherwise, but seriosuly, you didn't prove much of anything, whereas I have the case of Dowling VS the Untied States to back up my claim where they state that the crime of copyright infringement, despite still being illegal, is not equatable with theft. It may not be that good anymore, but I think for now it will be sufficient.
The simple fact is, we all know that when we download an mp3, it's theft.
Oh really?
So if you downlaod a MP3 from an independent artist who supports and encourages works being downloaded, you download one you made (your own music) from a server, or you download music you purchaced, it is theft? Nope, nice try, these are legitimate MP3 uses, and if there were illegal uses, it is copyright infringeement, not theft. Remember folks, MP3 IS JUST A FILE FORMAT, NOT AN ILLEGAL FILE FORMAT, THE KIND OF MP3S ARE WHAT IS THE CONCERN.
And DO NOT give the the copyright infringement != theft BS.
Why not? Can't stand the fact that if we were talking legally, the person correcting would technically be correct? How about because they have a different view than you (oh, real mature!)? Takes a troll to be a troll.
If the RIAA can fund studies that make questionable statistics like this (what is in the article), maybe I should throw around some bullshit myself...
How about "Statistics show that if you listen to or read anything from the MPAA, RIAA, CRIA, BSA, ARIA, ETC executives without being objectional, or researching it further, you get dumber by at least 20%."
[blockquote]Calm down there, guy. The reds aren't taking over. No need to drive up into the hills of Colorado. This is software you can elect to download and run yourself. It's not something they're running remotely targeting unsuspecting users.[/blockquote]
If the program does not distinguish betweeen legal and illegal files, then it doesn't matter whether or not it is optional to run, the program is being shoved around as a tool to (allegedly) take off illegal files, but we don't know if they can even distingusih between fair use backups and pirated files, and this doesn't at all concern you?
It could be argued that you are stealing money from labels who lose sales due to the pirated copies being sold.
Then that could be countered by the fact that by pirating, the only thing actually "lost" is nothing more than potential money that could or could not have been made in the firsty place, and that theft does not (always? ever?) depend on the "potential" but the IS.
That's why copyright infringement is a crime in the first place.
No, copyright infringement is a crime not because of the potential loss/failure to gain $$$, but because the violatior has violated the exclusive rights given to him under law.
Use a "forbidden" P2P protocol, and your ISP can and will dump you;
Call me stupid though, but if the p2p networks are still legal, can't they only kick you off (if you actually used it to break the law, and you got caught? Simply using p2p, legally or illegally is not enough, you have to get caught to get in trouble.
Re:P2P Now and Then in a nutshell
on
P2P Now and Then
·
· Score: 1
Now: stealing stuff
Then: stealing stuff
Actually, the usage was always copying stuff legally and illegally, not just copyig illegally. "And don't give me no "linux ISO" bullshit"? I will give it to you anyways, not that you should care anyways since you choose to go beyond denial, but linux ISO distibution happens on P2P networks.
Feal free to replace stealing with infriging if it will help you get through the day.
It is these kinds of inflammitory, ill-thought things that make me want to jump up and say "MOD TROLL!1!1!1!1" but alas! I don't! Instead I will respectfully reply to the point.
This makes the false assumptions that the argument "copyright infringement is not theft" is outright only used to hide or justify something, and that if it isn't being called theft , the person is not telling the truth.
While *some* used/use it as justification and denial, I have also seen, ans have used it because when talking about FACTS (not opinions or personal beliefs), the crimes involving p2p and copyrights involve piracy copyright infringement, not rape, murder, larceny, stealing, theft, etc. It has nothing to do with "getting me through the day" or "feeling better at night" since I know that copyright infringement is against the law, but it's about keeping the facts and the crimes in question accurately discribed and defined for the sake of debate with facts.
Simple, because the law says the crime is copyright infrignement and not theft, and the law says so because the crime involves illegally copying copyrighted works and violating associated contracts and/or agreements, not taking something illegally from somebody.
I mean, do you walk into Safeway and "share" the soda from the fridge.
No, because that IS theft.
...Use an "sharing" system ? Fine, get your ass sued off.
If I share free music I legally am alloowed to share, such things will be most unlikely to happen, troll.
I for one, will be the first to agree that stealing is wrong. Whether its a 1969 Corvette or the latest Britany Spears song in mp3, stealing is stealing./blockquote>
Tell me, where did anybody not agree that stealing was wrong?
Yes, stealing is stealing, but copying is always copying and never is stealing. it has been established before in this topic, bu all that is irrelivent if this is just an opnion, as I do think everybody should be entitled to an opinion.
Slashdot Mirror
Well, those rights are within reason, you do not want to have any racism/discimination issues brought against you, now do you?
Really? Tell me then, where does it say anything *other* than downloading/sharing songs that you don't have permission to share (*as opposed to those you do) as being ilelgal?
And why isn't it ok? If you have permission to share the music in question, or the music is in public domain/creative commons licensing? It's still downloading musc, so you were saying?
Maybe you keep on getting modded troll not because you have a differing opinion, but that opinion is nothing more than unbacked RIAA parroting... just a thought.
Irrelivent, how does DRM = profits for sure, and/or how does "hating DRM" == "they shouldn't make profits"? People make money for work not locked by DRM.. somehow the argument seems to be that of an illogical folly that no drm means that people will not make profit from their works when it has in fact been proven otherwise countless times. I can provide proof if challenged on this.
Sorry, I don't shiplift... oh, you mean copying music illegally? There is a factual difference, and putting what you call it in bold doesb't make it any more true. ^_^
That is a bad point on certain grounds, the biggest being that locking your car or posessions in the house from being stolen, which means that you don't have that car, or those posessions anymore... hence hwy you file a report when robbed. ^_^ Digital media OTOH, well, you reall can't lock it away from being "stolen" since it can't be stolen, it can be copied an infinite number of times... DRM might try to impede this, but that really isn't a "lock" since unlike the conventional idea, this doesn't prevent total access to the thing in question, just restricts the way it is used. Kind of more like automatic no-speeding devices in cars.
What about finding you a shrubbary, oh great knights who say.. or up until now said "Ni!"?
Like the AC said, there are people who do not already know this is implied and are unintentionally mislead to believe something that was not meant to be... in this case all copyrighted works VS copyrighted works being shared without permission.
Isn't this a tad bit of a broad definition of stealing? Given the legal/free content out there, and the fact that you can legally get music CDs and other "usually pay for" content free from contests, promos, even from your friend giving it to you because he doesn't want/need it, or buying it from a used CD store.
1. The crime is copyright infrignement - illegal copying against the wishes of the holder without the misapropriation of anything in the possession of that person... but we know this will be argued so ignore please...
2. Downloading copyrighted works alone isn't dishonest, and this BS is getting on my nerves. (please read the resto f the post before responding, please!) Internet explorer, Firefox, Linux, Open source software use licensing that relies on copyrighted works - but downloading them is not immoral or illegal since permission was given..... there are also works that are protected by traditional copyright wrks with loose restrictions ALA Creative Commons that can be shared freely or within reason... do you know what that tells you/me/us? That the real dishonesty and/or lawbreaking is sharing copyrighted works wityhout permission. Jeesh, why is this point always ignored? "it doesn't belong to you" doesn't matter "it's copyrighred to blahblahblah" DOESN'T MATYTER "you didn't get permission to share that file!" THAT is what MATTERS!
Nope, Grokster is a popular program for sharing not just movis and music, but software and documents as well as games, some legal, some not... and the flap is over copyright infringement... not theft... copyright infringement..... how many times must these people be fucking around with the language? Either that or the writers who wrote this were stoned and/or suseptible to bull and brainwash.
[blockquote]No matter how you slice it, when you smoke anywhere in public, you ARE imposing on those around you[/blockquote]
So my friend smoking on Mt. Everest affects you? Please explain how. ^_^
For example, comparing the killing of animals to the holocaust. http://www.cnn.com/2003/US/Northeast/02/28/peta.h
Sadly, this isn't the worse things enviornmentalist groups have done. No, that would probably be comparing the owning of pets to owning human slaves. http://www.animalrights.net/archives/year/2005/00
Those would be the actions of animal rights activists, not nessecarily enviromentalists (unless there are enviromentalists that are also ARAs) unless you count the Earth Liberation Front, sister to the Animal Liberation Front who is infamous for the exact same tactics (firebombing, sabotage (some that can put lives at risk) and heavy vandalism, but different targets. Still, the actions of these lunatics makes me sick.... I would love to crash a PETA protest using their tatics and see how they feel about it. ^_^
If you do not exclude the independent music artists or other artists who distribute their stuff for free, this definition is flawed to some degree, since piracy and/or copyright infringement involves copying copyrightwed works without permission from the copyright holder.
^_^Did you even bother to prove that it was theft, or did you just rant endlessly? What is one (or a group's) defintion is not nessecarily, and in this case HARDLY what the law calls theft. The simple fact of the matter is that this crime is prosecuted under copyright infringement, and like all the other delludes here who believe that there is no point but justification for posting this ideal, let me remind you that this is all strictly on what the law calls it and correcting a factuall error (not an opinion). Copyright Infringement is illegal, not too many people who argue it isn't theft would say otherwise, but seriosuly, you didn't prove much of anything, whereas I have the case of Dowling VS the Untied States to back up my claim where they state that the crime of copyright infringement, despite still being illegal, is not equatable with theft. It may not be that good anymore, but I think for now it will be sufficient.
Oh really?
So if you downlaod a MP3 from an independent artist who supports and encourages works being downloaded, you download one you made (your own music) from a server, or you download music you purchaced, it is theft? Nope, nice try, these are legitimate MP3 uses, and if there were illegal uses, it is copyright infringeement, not theft. Remember folks, MP3 IS JUST A FILE FORMAT, NOT AN ILLEGAL FILE FORMAT, THE KIND OF MP3S ARE WHAT IS THE CONCERN.
Why not? Can't stand the fact that if we were talking legally, the person correcting would technically be correct? How about because they have a different view than you (oh, real mature!)? Takes a troll to be a troll.
Do they rely on CD sales though? It is kind of like the MPAA's arguing about all the people who don't rely on box office sales being hurt by piracy.
If the RIAA can fund studies that make questionable statistics like this (what is in the article), maybe I should throw around some bullshit myself...
How about "Statistics show that if you listen to or read anything from the MPAA, RIAA, CRIA, BSA, ARIA, ETC executives without being objectional, or researching it further, you get dumber by at least 20%."
If the program does not distinguish betweeen legal and illegal files, then it doesn't matter whether or not it is optional to run, the program is being shoved around as a tool to (allegedly) take off illegal files, but we don't know if they can even distingusih between fair use backups and pirated files, and this doesn't at all concern you?
No, copyright infringement is a crime not because of the potential loss/failure to gain $$$, but because the violatior has violated the exclusive rights given to him under law.
Actually, the usage was always copying stuff legally and illegally, not just copyig illegally. "And don't give me no "linux ISO" bullshit"? I will give it to you anyways, not that you should care anyways since you choose to go beyond denial, but linux ISO distibution happens on P2P networks.
It is these kinds of inflammitory, ill-thought things that make me want to jump up and say "MOD TROLL!1!1!1!1" but alas! I don't! Instead I will respectfully reply to the point.
This makes the false assumptions that the argument "copyright infringement is not theft" is outright only used to hide or justify something, and that if it isn't being called theft , the person is not telling the truth.
While *some* used/use it as justification and denial, I have also seen, ans have used it because when talking about FACTS (not opinions or personal beliefs), the crimes involving p2p and copyrights involve piracy copyright infringement, not rape, murder, larceny, stealing, theft, etc. It has nothing to do with "getting me through the day" or "feeling better at night" since I know that copyright infringement is against the law, but it's about keeping the facts and the crimes in question accurately discribed and defined for the sake of debate with facts.
Simple, because the law says the crime is copyright infrignement and not theft, and the law says so because the crime involves illegally copying copyrighted works and violating associated contracts and/or agreements, not taking something illegally from somebody.
No, because that IS theft.
If I share free music I legally am alloowed to share, such things will be most unlikely to happen, troll.