You are all a bunch of fucking whiners. Stop all this bullshit posturing and just accept the fact that downloading copyrighted material is illegal.
I will not accept it because it is not true. The truth is downloading copyrighted material is legal if you have permission from the copyright holder, dmusic.com is a good example of this. It is copyright infringement if you download/copy it in cerain ways without permission from the copyright holder. STRIKE 1!
Lets go through some of the arguments:
1. I dont want to buy a CD when there is only one song on it I like.
Then buy that one song off of a music service such as iTunes
Unless of course the person has a computer that for some reason is incompatable with the "legal" downloading services, which might be uncommon to some, but does happen
4. Copyright infringement isn't stealing
I beg to differ, you are removing revenue from the **AA and the artists themselves. That makes it stealing. If you feel otherwise, let me know what your bank account number is and I'll skim 2% off of your paychecks. Perfectly legal, right?
Nice troll.
WhUnlike taking money out of somebody's bank account, you are doing nothing by copying a copyrighted file. What you do is potentially reduce the ammount they make, you do not take away from the money they have. Even that does not constitute theft, although some methods of reducing potential income are illegal(copyright infrignement), and some (competition) are not. That plus the law considers copying copyrighted workas without permission as *gasp!* copyright infringement, and that the crimes of copyright infringement and theft ae not the same.
think a lot of you are missing the point. Hollywood is going after the big fish. They are also going after bit torrent users. Ever time you let someone download a movie from you, you are violating copyright. You are giving away something somebody else owns.
You are violating copyright not because somebody else "owns" it, otherwise we would be in trouble for legally (?) downloading copyrighted stuff all the time. The reason it is copyright infringement is because no permission was given by the holder to distribute whatever work (in this case, MPAA movies) is being distributed.
First you download it. This is equivalent to shoplifting. You have no right to a free copy of any movie. You are stealing it directly from the studio that made it by not paying for it.
This is bullshit pure and simple. Stealing is not constituted simply by "not paying for it" not only because the law says there is more to constitute theft, but also because it it was, who knows how many things you would automatically outlaw. As for it being similar to shoplifting - I say nay. There are fundimental differences that both common sense and law show as different that for propoganda purposes the industries choose to ignore.
(BTW, what exactly are you claiming to be "stoeln" anyways?)
You have no right to distribute copies of anyone's intellectual property.BLOCKQUOTE>
Again, incorrect. Case-in-point sites like Dmusic.com, where artists encourage the music to be downloaded for free, and oftentimes even shared. You bet it is my damned right to shar others IP if they wish it to be so, why should you speak one opinion that excludes those who see things differently?
The mentality that this is somehow ok to do needs to change.
I personally think it needs to be changed too, but not too much, instead in a way that doesn't make all downlaoding and sharing a scary thing to do, given the ammount of independent music artists who allow the music they make to be shared freely without reprocussion.
It's not any better than printing your own money or walking into a store and stuffing a dvd into your bookbag and trying to walk out of the store with it. That doesn't hurt anyone right?
*LOUD OBNIXOUS BUZZER* Opinions are opinions, each can hold his/her wrong, but it is apparent you are spreading propaganda. Yes shoplifting DVD hurts people directly, anybody can see that with a little thing called common sense. Legally and action-wise, it is established that there are differences. Morals are opinion. one (downloadng) right and wrong are a matter of opninon which I personally base on the circumstabnces and situation of the download, whereas I already know shoplifting to be a bad thing.
The only difference is this is electronic, that's a printed copy. The value of what you are stealing is no different.
No, the differences are that unlike downloading a copy of something, shoplifting not only removes the physical asset from a store's posession, and they are gaurenteed to not make money from that thing outright, but you get lesser penalties for copyright violation, which I must repeat for the sake of arguing facts is copyright violation and/or contracts, but not theft by any stretch of common sense and legal terminiology.
Verdict: Troll. You talk the RIAA speak very well.
There is no excuse for illigally seing/dowloading/whatever movies and the likes, it is NOT your right
So... you believe that if somebody legally obtained some form of media, that person should be forced to pay up again for the same content in the case that the person looses the media?
But it seems you have made a generalization. Whos movies and music? The RIAA and MPAA? I could agree with that, but I certainly do not think it wise to say you don't have the right do download the works independent music and movie makers works when they give permission for the downloading (and sometimes distribution freely) of said works as such line could be accidentally interpreted as saying.
breaking into my house because you want to see the closes ill wear tomorow visiting your house.
Please elaborate on this.
Dont want to pay high prices ? DO NOT WATCH !
Or better yet.. find cheaper and/or free and legal media to watch/listen to. It is not as all or nothing as it seems.
Intellectual property is not just about making money. Suppose that you were popular enough that someone wanted to use one of your songs in an advertisement for something you consider morally repugnant. Without the concept of intellectual property, you would be unable to prevent this from happening, and you could find yourself living out the rest of your life as "the guy who wrote the NAMBLA jingle," or whatever. If you really "love the art" as much as you say you do, doesn't this concern you?
OF course without the concept of "intellectular property" you could stop him. Remember back before intellectular property" didn't exist and creations were either copyrighted, or patened(if it was an invention)? I think having trademarks, patents, and copyrights all bundled under inellectular property hasn't made things better given how you act as if the concept as a whole does the work, when it is the copyright law portion, a part of law in existance for a long time before "intellectular property" that would, and still does/could take care of the example you gave.
"I always thought that piracy connotes something glamorous," Mr. Meyer said. "Let's call it what it is: theft. I think it's just like shoplifting."
This is really funny, he tells us to call piracy what it really is, but then goes to call it something it isn't based on his opinion. Sorry, no cigar for you. Piracy is either copyright infringement, counterfiting, or... hey... piracy. That is what the law calls it, and that is what it really is under law.
That is your opinion, but I disagree. Ignoring legal restrictions has been a method of protest for hundreds of years in countries around the world. Sometimes it works, but sometimes it doesn't just like voting doesn't work (especially when the areas of change are under control of large conglomorate corporations with loads of money, and control over the laws.)
Ultimately I do think that private companies and organizations will make a lot of progress at the current rate it is going, but I still think the military could hold some hope in advancements as well.
No, seriously, what's the point of a manned space flight to Mars? What can they do that robots can't?
Colonizing space, which I admit can be done via space stations or colonizing the moon first (whatever comes first)is something that requires massive ammounts of modern technology, but ultimately to succeed needs humans to live there to be successful.
Is it really worth the cost and the risk?
Depends, if you want to get off the planet and be able to explore new land in a place far away, then I say that competent and efficient people make such radical sounding projects worthwile.
you're increasing life expectancy 50%, it seems like decreased fertility would be a benefit, not a drawback. You don't want to cause a population boom.
This might depend on who "you" is. I thought the traditional Catholic position against birth control was because people were supposed to be fruitful and multiply. I wonder if the Catholic church will then take a position against this because it inhibits such multiplication...
Moderation of this post be dammed.
I think that setting our sights to space would be a good way to ease our worries about overpopulation. This doesn't nessecarily mean colonizing the moon, or Mars right away (although that would be a good place to go eventually), but large scale space stations in orbit around the earth that would serve as our first setp off the planet. People would migrate to these areas, allowing the population of the human species to continue to grow without nessecarily threatening directly the earth, although supplying the stations would put a strain on the earth's resources until technology allows for the growth and creation of food in space, and the construction of things without the need of earthly resources.
Being able to live much older than before through the creation of an anti-aging drug (more than a decade away from possible creation, according to http://www.sciencentral.com/articles/view.php3?art icle_id=218392210&language=english) would be cool, really cool considering that in the article link I posted they say that such a drug could "45-year old at the age of 90, and could eventually help you live to be 200? " if the research they do is successful, but wouldn't it seriosuly fuck up the retirement age and stuff like that?
This is of course purely a matter of opinion, which I too disagree with. Copying and illegally showing others images already has a name - copyright infrignement, there is no need as far as I know to drag other terminology on when sufficient terms already exist, and/or when the law also differentiates them as well.
It's exactly the same as stealing a copy of a CD from the record store (actually, this hurts the record store and not the music company, but it's just as bad)
Seriosuly though, are you trying to come off as a troll, or just posting your opinions sincerely? I say this not on your opinion, but because you have managed to parrot the RIAA's famous tort exactly as they say it. No it is not by any stretch of the imagin the same as shoplifting a CD. In shoplifting a CD, there is no chance of a store or company to make any profits off of the CD, and the CD is not poasessed anymore by the store, none of this happens with copying images.
Theft" is not the proper legal term but it's a perfectly good description.
Opinion wise yes, factually... doubtful to almostr never... as anything that is only repeated without backing it up or explaining why it is a good example... no chance (to me).
Machinima is pretty cool, but why can't a game just be a game?
What's the point of having something if it is only used for what is supposed to be used for... what is the point of experimenting if it lets something be something other than twhat it is?
As a machinima movie maker myself, this is not accurate enouh. You film in-game, butall the actors know that they are in it usually, and also know what to do as well. And Machinima for the post part is a volenteer thing, there probably are some paid actor groups, but usually they work for free because they have an idea and want to make something out of it.
Tough call - DRM is coming (Or is already here), one way or another, and is better to work on creating something done right, or to object to it on moral grounds?
Accept that it is here yes, but that is no reason to not try and fight it with whatever logical and correct reason you can think of. Even if the reasons have some moral implementations
Not to mention the fact that you are maknig a copy of the "property" (?) not taking it away from the person, which is basically what I said before by not qualifying for theft legally.
I really shouldn't be feeding the trolls, but it is too tempting:
But uh, dude, that isn't false. It IS a fact, copyright infringement IS theft.
Again you have failed to prove it, and resorted to only repeating yourself.
You're taking someone else's property without consent. It doesn't matter that you can make practically infinite copies of the stuff electronically, it doesn't matter that no-one is stopping you from doing it, or that it's easy to do and not get caught, or any of the other justifications people use to keep stealing.
Apparently to the people ho qwrite our laws, theft needs deprival:
Since the statutorily defined property rights of a copyright holder have a character distinct from the possessory interest of the owner of simple "goods, wares, [or] merchandise," interference with copyright does not easily equate with theft, conversion, or fraud. The infringer of a copyright does not assume physical control over the copyright nor wholly deprive its owner of its use. Infringement implicates a more complex set of property interests than does run-of-the-mill theft, conversion, or fraud. Pp. 214-218.
So yeah, your dragging the idea of it being a justification was a red herring to the fact that you have failed to prove your point. What matters in discussing facts is that we have the facts.
bet that classrooms in the 1920s were a hell of a lot more disciplined than they are today. Ever looked in a school recently? They're like war zones. The teachers have no authority, they can't even look at kids the wrong way without being sacked/sued/jailed.
Not all schools are however liek that, and I think that the situation is not quite as alarming as you make it out to be.
Kids have too many 'rights' these days. As far as I'm concerned, kids have the 'right' to do as they're damn well told, and nothing else.
It's obvious that the majority disagrees with your boot camp approach. Kids have rights, granted not as many as adults, but I do not think they have too many. An education, safety, security, breaks, is that really unreasonable? They are human too, they need to be brought up correctly, but treating them like crap won't do that at all. They will do what they are told if made to do so, and I agree that they should, but the way you approach it... it's too lacking of exceptions and circumstance. What if the teacher is threatening for no reason... is drunk... on drugs... or asks them to do dangerous things... surely that is a time where they should do more than what they are told, right?
Which leads me to my philosophy... we have many problems partially because of people who try to implement the kind of ideals you want and fail miserably, or have too many emotional problems... at least in the high school I went to it was the problem. Not at all am I saying out of control kids are not the problem, but you take it that this is a one should fit all solution even where it isn't problematic, or as problematic.
They should go to Konami for games they could use in gym class. Last time I checked, Dance Dance Revolution is one helluva addicting, and sweat inducing game even when you are not in workout mode.
Oh, it most certainly is propaganda. I won't argue that, not for a moment. But PETA's stance, and I feel this way too, is that it's wrong for those atrocities to happen once.
I think this can be an agreeable stance, but I think PETA, and many other groups, especialy the radical ones are going about this with the wrong way - that is from my understanding, a "if we eliminate it, it can't happen." type of attitude.
I'm a vegetarian simply because I don't want to kill animals..
If you really wanted to not kill animals, you wouldn't live in a house, or even eat for that mater, since that all kills animals.
It is possible to live a lifestyle where the number of animals are killed for your lifestyle are reduced, but physically impossible to live in a 0-kill world.
Slashdot Mirror
I am having a field day with this topic!
I will not accept it because it is not true. The truth is downloading copyrighted material is legal if you have permission from the copyright holder, dmusic.com is a good example of this. It is copyright infringement if you download/copy it in cerain ways without permission from the copyright holder. STRIKE 1!
Unless of course the person has a computer that for some reason is incompatable with the "legal" downloading services, which might be uncommon to some, but does happen
Nice troll.
WhUnlike taking money out of somebody's bank account, you are doing nothing by copying a copyrighted file. What you do is potentially reduce the ammount they make, you do not take away from the money they have. Even that does not constitute theft, although some methods of reducing potential income are illegal(copyright infrignement), and some (competition) are not. That plus the law considers copying copyrighted workas without permission as *gasp!* copyright infringement, and that the crimes of copyright infringement and theft ae not the same.
You are violating copyright not because somebody else "owns" it, otherwise we would be in trouble for legally (?) downloading copyrighted stuff all the time. The reason it is copyright infringement is because no permission was given by the holder to distribute whatever work (in this case, MPAA movies) is being distributed.
This is bullshit pure and simple. Stealing is not constituted simply by "not paying for it" not only because the law says there is more to constitute theft, but also because it it was, who knows how many things you would automatically outlaw. As for it being similar to shoplifting - I say nay. There are fundimental differences that both common sense and law show as different that for propoganda purposes the industries choose to ignore. (BTW, what exactly are you claiming to be "stoeln" anyways?)
So... you believe that if somebody legally obtained some form of media, that person should be forced to pay up again for the same content in the case that the person looses the media?
But it seems you have made a generalization. Whos movies and music? The RIAA and MPAA? I could agree with that, but I certainly do not think it wise to say you don't have the right do download the works independent music and movie makers works when they give permission for the downloading (and sometimes distribution freely) of said works as such line could be accidentally interpreted as saying.
breaking into my house because you want to see the closes ill wear tomorow visiting your house.
Please elaborate on this.
Or better yet.. find cheaper and/or free and legal media to watch/listen to. It is not as all or nothing as it seems.
Are you talking about somebody somehow "stealing" potential profits from somebody, or something else. Please clarify.
OF course without the concept of "intellectular property" you could stop him. Remember back before intellectular property" didn't exist and creations were either copyrighted, or patened(if it was an invention)? I think having trademarks, patents, and copyrights all bundled under inellectular property hasn't made things better given how you act as if the concept as a whole does the work, when it is the copyright law portion, a part of law in existance for a long time before "intellectular property" that would, and still does/could take care of the example you gave.
This is really funny, he tells us to call piracy what it really is, but then goes to call it something it isn't based on his opinion. Sorry, no cigar for you. Piracy is either copyright infringement, counterfiting, or... hey... piracy. That is what the law calls it, and that is what it really is under law.
That is your opinion, but I disagree. Ignoring legal restrictions has been a method of protest for hundreds of years in countries around the world. Sometimes it works, but sometimes it doesn't just like voting doesn't work (especially when the areas of change are under control of large conglomorate corporations with loads of money, and control over the laws.)
I think "turn the other cheek" is meant in terms of vengence, not in defending yourself from physical harm.
Ultimately I do think that private companies and organizations will make a lot of progress at the current rate it is going, but I still think the military could hold some hope in advancements as well.
Colonizing space, which I admit can be done via space stations or colonizing the moon first (whatever comes first)is something that requires massive ammounts of modern technology, but ultimately to succeed needs humans to live there to be successful.
Depends, if you want to get off the planet and be able to explore new land in a place far away, then I say that competent and efficient people make such radical sounding projects worthwile.
Moderation of this post be dammed.
I think that setting our sights to space would be a good way to ease our worries about overpopulation. This doesn't nessecarily mean colonizing the moon, or Mars right away (although that would be a good place to go eventually), but large scale space stations in orbit around the earth that would serve as our first setp off the planet. People would migrate to these areas, allowing the population of the human species to continue to grow without nessecarily threatening directly the earth, although supplying the stations would put a strain on the earth's resources until technology allows for the growth and creation of food in space, and the construction of things without the need of earthly resources.
Being able to live much older than before through the creation of an anti-aging drug (more than a decade away from possible creation, according to http://www.sciencentral.com/articles/view.php3?art icle_id=218392210&language=english) would be cool, really cool considering that in the article link I posted they say that such a drug could "45-year old at the age of 90, and could eventually help you live to be 200? " if the research they do is successful, but wouldn't it seriosuly fuck up the retirement age and stuff like that?
This is of course purely a matter of opinion, which I too disagree with. Copying and illegally showing others images already has a name - copyright infrignement, there is no need as far as I know to drag other terminology on when sufficient terms already exist, and/or when the law also differentiates them as well.
Seriosuly though, are you trying to come off as a troll, or just posting your opinions sincerely? I say this not on your opinion, but because you have managed to parrot the RIAA's famous tort exactly as they say it. No it is not by any stretch of the imagin the same as shoplifting a CD. In shoplifting a CD, there is no chance of a store or company to make any profits off of the CD, and the CD is not poasessed anymore by the store, none of this happens with copying images.
Opinion wise yes, factually... doubtful to almostr never... as anything that is only repeated without backing it up or explaining why it is a good example... no chance (to me).
What's the point of having something if it is only used for what is supposed to be used for... what is the point of experimenting if it lets something be something other than twhat it is?
As a machinima movie maker myself, this is not accurate enouh. You film in-game, butall the actors know that they are in it usually, and also know what to do as well. And Machinima for the post part is a volenteer thing, there probably are some paid actor groups, but usually they work for free because they have an idea and want to make something out of it.
Accept that it is here yes, but that is no reason to not try and fight it with whatever logical and correct reason you can think of. Even if the reasons have some moral implementations
Not to mention the fact that you are maknig a copy of the "property" (?) not taking it away from the person, which is basically what I said before by not qualifying for theft legally.
Again you have failed to prove it, and resorted to only repeating yourself.
Apparently to the people ho qwrite our laws, theft needs deprival:
"Downling VS The United States," http://www.netjus.it/pages/giurisprudenzax.asp?ar
So yeah, your dragging the idea of it being a justification was a red herring to the fact that you have failed to prove your point. What matters in discussing facts is that we have the facts.
Sorry, that should read In this case no, any comment that is just stated as fact without proof, or that is knowingly false will be marked as troll.
In this case no, any comment that is just stated as fact without fact, or that is knowingly false will be marked as troll.
Likewise, saying it is and not providing any sources will not make it so either.
Not all schools are however liek that, and I think that the situation is not quite as alarming as you make it out to be.
It's obvious that the majority disagrees with your boot camp approach. Kids have rights, granted not as many as adults, but I do not think they have too many. An education, safety, security, breaks, is that really unreasonable? They are human too, they need to be brought up correctly, but treating them like crap won't do that at all. They will do what they are told if made to do so, and I agree that they should, but the way you approach it... it's too lacking of exceptions and circumstance. What if the teacher is threatening for no reason... is drunk... on drugs... or asks them to do dangerous things... surely that is a time where they should do more than what they are told, right?
Which leads me to my philosophy... we have many problems partially because of people who try to implement the kind of ideals you want and fail miserably, or have too many emotional problems... at least in the high school I went to it was the problem. Not at all am I saying out of control kids are not the problem, but you take it that this is a one should fit all solution even where it isn't problematic, or as problematic.
They should go to Konami for games they could use in gym class. Last time I checked, Dance Dance Revolution is one helluva addicting, and sweat inducing game even when you are not in workout mode.
I think this can be an agreeable stance, but I think PETA, and many other groups, especialy the radical ones are going about this with the wrong way - that is from my understanding, a "if we eliminate it, it can't happen." type of attitude.
If you really wanted to not kill animals, you wouldn't live in a house, or even eat for that mater, since that all kills animals. It is possible to live a lifestyle where the number of animals are killed for your lifestyle are reduced, but physically impossible to live in a 0-kill world.