Bullshit!
It is easy to say you'd rather die that go through a pat down or walk through a screening device.
What's more like it is that you'd rather be right than consider the possibility that even one plane (~250 human beings) might be snuffed out by some crazies, and that such inspections could actually prevent that happening.
I, for one will opt on the side of a safe flight.
The law is that books can be in libraries. They are still for single use only. The author got paid for the volume on the shelf. And you cannot legally make a copy and take it home with you and give to others. That's all part of "fair use."
File sharing copyrighted music is illegal. Giving a copy of a song to someone else is NOT part of "fair use".
Go pay Apple 99 cents for a song. Listen to it anywhere you want. Buy a book at Borders, read it anywhere you want. Then pass it on to another. Just don't make a copy and give to another. Fair use...
But I read all the time about their methods and I virtually NEVER read about someone calling file sharing theft. That is, it is theft if it is copyrighted material and they are getting it or making it available to others so that others don't have to pay.
Some may want to say, "but it ain't right". It IS the law.
It is theft. I'll say it again. It is theft!
Now, having said that...
The RIAA is definitely overstepping it's bounds, but let's all take some responsibility for their actions. That is, all "us" that are stealing copyrighted material, and all of "us" that are making it available for theft.
Quit stealing, Then they'd have NO grounds for their stupid fishing expeditions.
In my opinion, people have NO right to complain about the RIAA's methods when they, themselves, are breaking the law!
And the reason I wrote this time was because it seemed to me that that's who was complaining the loudest.
I agree that copyrights are out of hand. Example: Disney renewing the mickey mouse IP again. By now Mickey Mouse really does (or should) belong to the world.
But... Copyright does (should) allow an artist to "make a living" while creating, and nothing else. It shouldn't make agents of artists richer than it does the artists. That's a battle I'd fight.
I don't believe it should be your right to give the use of something you paid for to someone else, so that now you are both enjoying the fruits of an aritst's creation only having paid him/her once. And if you place a piece of music on a folder that is shared on the Internet, you've just massively ripped of the artist, big time.
It's no wonder that copyright holders are fighting for their rights when it seems that people are willing to NOT pay them for their talent. I'd guess if file sharing wasn't so rampant, there wouldn't and "big bad RIAA". Instead, only an RIAA that provides accounting for world wide payment for the use of artist creations.
Let's don't start about big record companys. Suffice it to say that they shouldn't be making more that the artists
I've been following these "rights to music" threads for sometime now.
What I don't understand is how ANYONE can think they have a right to give copyrighted "anything" to another. Or how anyone can believe they have a right to unpaid-for copyrighted "anything" (that is, stuff they haven't paid the rightful owner for).
I could understand the fight against the big bad RIAA if the thing they are trying to stop wasn't illegal and unfair sharing of music.
Or am I missing something? Are they fighting something other than illegal and unfair theft of other's copyrighted "something"?
You can decry their methods, but is doesn't change the fact that people are stealing from them!
Or you can say, "the artist isn't properly represented by the money grubbing RIAA", but that still doesn't change that people are stealing from the artists.
I hear complaints about the cost of a CD, and even that doesn't give anyone the right to steal.
So, am I missing something. Aren't most of you complaining about these RIAA suits advocating theft? Or if not advocating, ignoring theft?
Before you flame me, consider that I too believe that if I purchase something (CD, mp3 download) that I shoud have the right to access it in anyway I see fit. Including burning a CD to play in my car, or ripping to an mp3 or Ogg to play on my portable handheld or my laptop while on the road.
So let's don't mix up theft with right of use, please.
Slashdot Mirror
Bullshit! It is easy to say you'd rather die that go through a pat down or walk through a screening device. What's more like it is that you'd rather be right than consider the possibility that even one plane (~250 human beings) might be snuffed out by some crazies, and that such inspections could actually prevent that happening. I, for one will opt on the side of a safe flight.
Another straw man argument...
The law is that books can be in libraries. They are still for single use only. The author got paid for the volume on the shelf. And you cannot legally make a copy and take it home with you and give to others. That's all part of "fair use."
File sharing copyrighted music is illegal. Giving a copy of a song to someone else is NOT part of "fair use".
Go pay Apple 99 cents for a song. Listen to it anywhere you want. Buy a book at Borders, read it anywhere you want. Then pass it on to another. Just don't make a copy and give to another. Fair use...
Of course the end doesn't justify the means.
But I read all the time about their methods and I virtually NEVER read about someone calling file sharing theft. That is, it is theft if it is copyrighted material and they are getting it or making it available to others so that others don't have to pay.
Some may want to say, "but it ain't right". It IS the law.
It is theft. I'll say it again. It is theft!
Now, having said that...
The RIAA is definitely overstepping it's bounds, but let's all take some responsibility for their actions. That is, all "us" that are stealing copyrighted material, and all of "us" that are making it available for theft.
Quit stealing, Then they'd have NO grounds for their stupid fishing expeditions.
In my opinion, people have NO right to complain about the RIAA's methods when they, themselves, are breaking the law!
And the reason I wrote this time was because it seemed to me that that's who was complaining the loudest.
I agree that copyrights are out of hand. Example: Disney renewing the mickey mouse IP again. By now Mickey Mouse really does (or should) belong to the world.
But... Copyright does (should) allow an artist to "make a living" while creating, and nothing else. It shouldn't make agents of artists richer than it does the artists. That's a battle I'd fight.
I don't believe it should be your right to give the use of something you paid for to someone else, so that now you are both enjoying the fruits of an aritst's creation only having paid him/her once. And if you place a piece of music on a folder that is shared on the Internet, you've just massively ripped of the artist, big time.
It's no wonder that copyright holders are fighting for their rights when it seems that people are willing to NOT pay them for their talent. I'd guess if file sharing wasn't so rampant, there wouldn't and "big bad RIAA". Instead, only an RIAA that provides accounting for world wide payment for the use of artist creations.
Let's don't start about big record companys. Suffice it to say that they shouldn't be making more that the artists
I've been following these "rights to music" threads for sometime now.
What I don't understand is how ANYONE can think they have a right to give copyrighted "anything" to another. Or how anyone can believe they have a right to unpaid-for copyrighted "anything" (that is, stuff they haven't paid the rightful owner for).
I could understand the fight against the big bad RIAA if the thing they are trying to stop wasn't illegal and unfair sharing of music.
Or am I missing something? Are they fighting something other than illegal and unfair theft of other's copyrighted "something"?
You can decry their methods, but is doesn't change the fact that people are stealing from them!
Or you can say, "the artist isn't properly represented by the money grubbing RIAA", but that still doesn't change that people are stealing from the artists.
I hear complaints about the cost of a CD, and even that doesn't give anyone the right to steal.
So, am I missing something. Aren't most of you complaining about these RIAA suits advocating theft? Or if not advocating, ignoring theft?
Before you flame me, consider that I too believe that if I purchase something (CD, mp3 download) that I shoud have the right to access it in anyway I see fit. Including burning a CD to play in my car, or ripping to an mp3 or Ogg to play on my portable handheld or my laptop while on the road.
So let's don't mix up theft with right of use, please.