Isn't the question to ask, when will people stop sharing copyrighted music online illegally?
Do you mean copyrighted works they don't have permission to share? Because there are copyrighted works people are given permission to share (independent artists, public domain works, ect.)
There's no reason why the RIAA does not have a right to sue these people.
I can think of one reason. When they are suing blindly, and making the mistakes that they have made in the past in targeting the wrong people. Plus I think there was a thing used in law called due process if I remember correctly.
the copyright owners still have no obligation to do what you see is best for them.
If it means making money, then there is a limited obligation if they want the customers.
By stealing it and getting caught you are stuck giving them more money then if you bought it.
BLOCKQUOTE>
I am aware that copyright infringement is a crime, and illegal, and so is shoplifting (which are both legally and possibly philosophically different) ect, but it is ironic that stealing a product (I.E a CD out of a store) you end up paying LESS in fines than settling over copyright infringement with the RIAA. And if this isn't 100% true, at least the money demanded is less than what the RIAA is asking.
(I only post this because it is irony I noticed since you brought up stealing, this example was triggered.)
Please note I will not reply to any 'ITS NOT STEALING!!!111ELEVEN!!' replies
If you didn't want to hear the replies (the replies don't ends up in your exaderated '7331' (leet) talk, admit it) correcting you on the legal FACT that the crime is infringement of copyright infringement, then why the hell did you make the argument in the first place?
Is the internet REALLY full of people who are so stupid that they hate to have a certain reply, but post something that the only *real* reply would be something like that in the first place?
While I agree that the artists are underpaid. The money won in court/a settlement for violating a copyright, goes to the person that owns the copyright, which in most cases is the record company.
And they said that they were doing this for the artists. If the copyright holders are the companies, then I find that claim almost impossible to believe.
... Because downloading it the artist gets zero.
Assuming of course the person would buy the music in the first place.
Guy puts a song on his server, gets hauled into court and is ordered to pay the RIAA (or the equivalent in whatever country we are talking about this week) for the lost revenue ie "damages"
Why is it they call it "lost profits" instead of lost potential profits, may I ask out of curiosity? They don't have the money yet, it is almost as if they are giving themselves the right to presume how much money they can/will make and are hell bend on making it, or twisting reality to make it happen.
The public buys into the idea of it being stealing because they realize that copyright infringement is immoral and is similar in terms of morality to stealing.
They didn't realize it, they were influcned to believe this using illogical analogies and examples which were presented in a way that appeared to make sense. The people that influenced this were the RIAA, BSA, and MPAA. I certainly do not see the logical and legal similarities, and believe this line of thinking goes against what I was personally taught as a child, which is why I don't believe in it.
Stop "sharing" material that you did not create and therefore have zero right to. Just stop. Right now and forever.
Wait, so not creating it == no right to access it? Does anybody else see how taking this literally is really a stupid thing to do, or how poorly though out this statement is? If you follow this, you can't listen to any cds, or view artowork because of the fact you didn't create it, which is the context I am reading it.
What is the difference between a thief and a person uploading a copyrighted movie to the internet? That's right there is none!
Legally there is, logically therei s a difference, philosophically it has succesfully been argued, morally, it is subective.
This is ignorance of the law at most. Copyright infringement and theft have been legally different for as far back as it has been written down. Logically it is different as well. Taking a CD out of a store (paying is gaining permissions to take it out) without payment/permission is theft. The CD has been relocated out of the shop without permission, and without payment depriving the person of the potential money off of that one CD indefinately. Copying a song on the other hand does not delete the file off the HD of the user you downloaded the file, and there is a high uncertainty of whether or not potential payment has been *lost*. Most imporantly noted is, there is no loss of something one already posesses.
Pirating is stealing.
Opinion noted
Uploading pirated material is "big fish" stealing, because you actually not only steal your own single copy but facilitate others in doing the same
If you stole your copy, then why the hell do you still have it, if by definition it must be missing? Not only have you been proven to be a logic/argument stooge to the RIAA/MPAA/BSA, but your arguments reek badly of logical blasphemy.
On the other hand, the vast majority of traffic generated by BitTorrent users is trafficking of copyright-protected content, i.e. IP Theft.
"IP Theft"? Dear me, we seem to have quasi-legal sounding RIAA/BAS/RIAA invented terminology mxed up with true legal terms here. Tell me, if this crime you call "IP Theft" existed, then why is it that the file-sharers are not being prosecuted/sued for that, instead of copyright infringement?
Copying and redistributing copyrighted works has always been illegal and punishable by stiff fines and/or imprisonment.
NO, Copying and redistributing copyrighted works without permission/B> is illegal. Indie artists copyright their works (CreativeCommons relies on copyright laws to an extent), so under your definition, it would be illegal even if there was permission given to copy/share.
Copyrighted is not the issue, pauyment is not the issue, permissions is the key issue, and statements like what I just wuoted just make this less apparent. Think about it, independent artists share their own copyright music for free, which would be illegal under some mis-quotation/understanding/misconception of copyright laws shown by certain copyright advocates unintentionally.
Distributing a pre-release copy of a movie can't be excused as "making a backup copy" or simply "sharing". It's stealing, man, plain and simple.
No, it is copyright infringement, "plain and simple." (I am really starting to HATE this phrase!) It is still illegal (before you accuse me of saying it is not illegal), but the reason it is not theft under law, and not so philosophically and morally to me, is because I was taught that theft requited loss of something you had, and that if you still had something while it was supposively "taken" it was copying, or something else that was wrong in certain cases, pre-release leaking
included.
The difference is that I don't delude myself that I'm doing something cool, noble, moral, legal or reasonable. I stole just as sure as I did when I shoplifted as a teenager.
I don't, and I think only a minority here in THIS topic so far, actually have done what you have stated. Most of us know/accept that copyright infringement is illegal. And no, you "stole" nothing by copying "Dragostea Din Tei" for example, just copied and have the potential, which is undertain, of illegally reducing the potential to make money by the copyright holder.
If you acquiesce to your kids "sharing" files, don't be surprised if you get a call from the local cops about your kids stealing from Walmart.
Untrue (I am a living example of this being untrue), I have shared files, and never shoplifted, who the hell are you to say this will happen, and if it does to everybody? This is just baseless FUD and bullshit. Sharing files doesn't automatically instill the idea that shoplifting is o.k.
Because they are taking money away from rich people
Horeshit. If this is true, then why do they not have large stashes of cash hidden away then? Because they are not taking money away, but reducing the ammound of potential revenue they may or may not recieve. Despite what they say however, saying that they want to make trillions or billions, or even millions will automatically make it true.
How about a "World Copyright Reform Month" instead? I think it would help in educating people with the problems and conflicts involved in current copyright laws VS creativity (length, corporate control, etc), and viable alternatives, including the Creative Commons licensing/Founder's Copyright system.
I've seen a DVD or two with an overly-long commercial at the beginning that likens copying movies to stealing cars or purses, etc.
That would be the MPAA's "PiRacY: It'S a CrImE" commercial. It is a poor attempt to toy with people's emotions using logically and legally false ideas to make them look like the good guys, most visible is the "copyright infringement VS theft" argument which as continually been debunked.
Here is one line I find as real flaimbait above all:
According to RealNetworks chairman and chief executive Rob Glaser, "by having a free service that is legal, it flattens the issue of 'Why use an illegal service?'"
Ok, this comment is bugging the shit out of me.
The reason this bugs me so is for one reason, and only one: The file-sharing programs (KaZaa (old), BearShare, Grokster, Ares, WinMX, ETC) ARE NOT ILLEGAL. The networks they run on ARE NOT ILLEGAL. It is the sharing of copyright works without permission that is illegal, but not the actual services, because there are, as surprising to the industry and apparently to RealNetwork's Rob Glaser, legal uses these programs can be used for.
The only reason that these people (the music library uploaders) are criminals is because the music industry says that they are.
So, why listen to them then? Since when did they control our morals and our philosophical differences? Yes laws are what tether the innocent and guilty down, and that the laws that the RIAA/MPAA/BSA forced on us are impeeding the side of reasoning in creating good IP laws as well, but there is one thing they will only control if they are allowed to, and that is reasoning, logic, and moral/philosophical points that we live by.
Make an illegal copy of something you don't own, you are stealing the content.
No, you are COPYING ILLEGALLY. The crime is copyright infringement.
http://slashdot.org/~Travelsonic/journal/
read this, and my viewpoint may become clearer, but when you copy something, that is what it is, copying. You don't call murder rape, do you?
Granted it's theft, but theft of one $8.00 movie ticket at the most. Even if it is stealing (which I do consider it), three years in jail is just stupidly over-reactionary and overtly excessive.
Personal opinion excluded ("Even if it is stealing (which I do consider it)"), because this is VERY subjectve, the crime these people are sued for is NOT theft, despite what was stated. The crime (I said crime, I basically acknowledged it was illegal) is copyright infringement. No loss of property, no seisure, nothing that falls under theft laws legally. In these cases, potential profit, something they DON'T have yet was "lost."
Mr. Ghost:
Let's see, if someone puts a copy of an unreleased movie out to be shared/downloaded and say 300 people download it then the cost would be 300x$8 or $2400. That is assuming you do not live on the coasts where movie tickets can cost up to $18.
You are also making the dangerous assumption that the person would see the movie in a theatre in the first place. I can think of at least two other times this is false.
What makes this any different?
Do not bash me, I understand the context of this sentence.
The difference with the storew analogy is with movies it circulates with money the companies could possibly make, and whether or not they reach their goal or not, whereas the store already has the money that was stolen.
Copyright infringement is illegal yes, but calling it anything other thatn what it is is also wrong, IMO (THIS IS SUBJECTIVE!)
Not make sense? Maybe I can try to clear it up.
The statement stated that the file must be commercially released to be jailed.
Many artists release music, and commercially release it as well.
That is a contridiction.
An anonymous reader submits "Bush is expected to sign a law that essentially makes it a crime punishable by up to three years in jail for a user to put a single 'copy of a film, software program or music file in a shared folder and
should have known the copyrighted work had not been commercially released.' Whichever side you're on in the copyright debate, you have to agree this legislation is draconian and excessive, to say the least."
So, does this mean that having indiependent or other artists who have music sold on CD, but also has free tracks to download come to an end if this is enforced in the context I read it as?
Too many superstitions in the story (Number 13 appears too many times).
Carnival Cruise Lines must be the only cruse line to skip from deck 12 to 14 then on their Conquest series ships? What about hotels too, they are superstitious as well.
Slashdot Mirror
Do you mean copyrighted works they don't have permission to share? Because there are copyrighted works people are given permission to share (independent artists, public domain works, ect.)
I can think of one reason. When they are suing blindly, and making the mistakes that they have made in the past in targeting the wrong people. Plus I think there was a thing used in law called due process if I remember correctly. If it means making money, then there is a limited obligation if they want the customers.
Legally there is, logically therei s a difference, philosophically it has succesfully been argued, morally, it is subective. This is ignorance of the law at most. Copyright infringement and theft have been legally different for as far back as it has been written down. Logically it is different as well. Taking a CD out of a store (paying is gaining permissions to take it out) without payment/permission is theft. The CD has been relocated out of the shop without permission, and without payment depriving the person of the potential money off of that one CD indefinately. Copying a song on the other hand does not delete the file off the HD of the user you downloaded the file, and there is a high uncertainty of whether or not potential payment has been *lost*. Most imporantly noted is, there is no loss of something one already posesses.
Opinion noted
If you stole your copy, then why the hell do you still have it, if by definition it must be missing? Not only have you been proven to be a logic/argument stooge to the RIAA/MPAA/BSA, but your arguments reek badly of logical blasphemy.
"IP Theft"? Dear me, we seem to have quasi-legal sounding RIAA/BAS/RIAA invented terminology mxed up with true legal terms here. Tell me, if this crime you call "IP Theft" existed, then why is it that the file-sharers are not being prosecuted/sued for that, instead of copyright infringement?
NO, Copying and redistributing copyrighted works without permission
Copyrighted is not the issue, pauyment is not the issue, permissions is the key issue, and statements like what I just wuoted just make this less apparent. Think about it, independent artists share their own copyright music for free, which would be illegal under some mis-quotation/understanding/misconception of copyright laws shown by certain copyright advocates unintentionally.
No, it is copyright infringement, "plain and simple." (I am really starting to HATE this phrase!) It is still illegal (before you accuse me of saying it is not illegal), but the reason it is not theft under law, and not so philosophically and morally to me, is because I was taught that theft requited loss of something you had, and that if you still had something while it was supposively "taken" it was copying, or something else that was wrong in certain cases, pre-release leaking included.
I don't, and I think only a minority here in THIS topic so far, actually have done what you have stated. Most of us know/accept that copyright infringement is illegal. And no, you "stole" nothing by copying "Dragostea Din Tei" for example, just copied and have the potential, which is undertain, of illegally reducing the potential to make money by the copyright holder.
Untrue (I am a living example of this being untrue), I have shared files, and never shoplifted, who the hell are you to say this will happen, and if it does to everybody? This is just baseless FUD and bullshit. Sharing files doesn't automatically instill the idea that shoplifting is o.k.
How about a "World Copyright Reform Month" instead? I think it would help in educating people with the problems and conflicts involved in current copyright laws VS creativity (length, corporate control, etc), and viable alternatives, including the Creative Commons licensing/Founder's Copyright system.
That would be the MPAA's "PiRacY: It'S a CrImE" commercial. It is a poor attempt to toy with people's emotions using logically and legally false ideas to make them look like the good guys, most visible is the "copyright infringement VS theft" argument which as continually been debunked.
Ok, this comment is bugging the shit out of me.
The reason this bugs me so is for one reason, and only one: The file-sharing programs (KaZaa (old), BearShare, Grokster, Ares, WinMX, ETC) ARE NOT ILLEGAL. The networks they run on ARE NOT ILLEGAL. It is the sharing of copyright works without permission that is illegal , but not the actual services, because there are, as surprising to the industry and apparently to RealNetwork's Rob Glaser, legal uses these programs can be used for.
So, why listen to them then? Since when did they control our morals and our philosophical differences? Yes laws are what tether the innocent and guilty down, and that the laws that the RIAA/MPAA/BSA forced on us are impeeding the side of reasoning in creating good IP laws as well, but there is one thing they will only control if they are allowed to, and that is reasoning, logic, and moral/philosophical points that we live by.
Mr. Ghost:
You are also making the dangerous assumption that the person would see the movie in a theatre in the first place. I can think of at least two other times this is false. Do not bash me, I understand the context of this sentence.The difference with the storew analogy is with movies it circulates with money the companies could possibly make, and whether or not they reach their goal or not, whereas the store already has the money that was stolen. Copyright infringement is illegal yes, but calling it anything other thatn what it is is also wrong, IMO (THIS IS SUBJECTIVE!)
Not make sense? Maybe I can try to clear it up. The statement stated that the file must be commercially released to be jailed. Many artists release music, and commercially release it as well. That is a contridiction.