PDA

View Full Version : What app do you use to download?


robbieopperude
07-21-2010, 11:15 AM
Music, Videos, software.

Please chime in.

BroncoSojia
07-21-2010, 11:28 AM
Itunes and Vuze mostly

RhymesayersDU
07-21-2010, 12:21 PM
uTorrent

Los Broncos
07-21-2010, 12:33 PM
Limewire and Zune marketplace.

Rabb
07-21-2010, 12:36 PM
the internet

Kaylore
07-21-2010, 01:16 PM
Netflix, Vuze

Broncosfreak_56
07-21-2010, 01:33 PM
uTorrent

This.

Greatspirits
07-21-2010, 01:47 PM
itunes

Doggcow
07-21-2010, 02:11 PM
Limewire and Zune marketplace.

Limewire is about the worst thing you can put on your computer.

Killericon
07-21-2010, 02:37 PM
Vuze.

broncosteven
07-21-2010, 02:37 PM
Cd's mostly. Never figured out the appeal to watching a movie on a PC.

Los Broncos
07-21-2010, 03:20 PM
Limewire is about the worst thing you can put on your computer.

No ****, haven't used it in about a year.

Just Zune mostly.

SonOfLe-loLang
07-21-2010, 03:21 PM
Limewire is about the worst thing you can put on your computer.

i havent used limewire in ages, but why is this?

brncs_fan
07-21-2010, 03:23 PM
Amazon downloader and itunes

chadta
07-21-2010, 03:32 PM
spookyigloo.net

links are hosted at various file hosting sites, i use Jdownloader to download them from those sites.

if you sign up use me as a refferer, great group of people, never been anything ive wanted that i havent been able to find

Los Broncos
07-21-2010, 03:44 PM
i havent used limewire in ages, but why is this?

Spyware, virus, have to be careful of what you download.

robbieopperude
07-21-2010, 04:31 PM
spookyigloo.net

links are hosted at various file hosting sites, i use Jdownloader to download them from those sites.

if you sign up use me as a refferer, great group of people, never been anything ive wanted that i havent been able to find

How much does it cost to download music? I am hoping to figure out a way to get it for free like the old days.

chadta
07-21-2010, 05:30 PM
for music i use super MP3 download, unless i want a whole album, good selection of music on the igloo site tho.

and the cost is nothing, the site does have a pay portion to it, people in the paid section get priority for help over the people who dont pay, but everybody gets help.

Hogan11
07-21-2010, 05:55 PM
iTunes

broncosteven
07-21-2010, 06:21 PM
How much does it cost to download music? I am hoping to figure out a way to get it for free like the old days.

I still don't understand how people expect artists to get paid.

The music model is FUBAR but the artist has a right to get paid something.

chadta
07-21-2010, 06:45 PM
I still don't understand how people expect artists to get paid.

give away the cds, heck do away with cds' do it full digital for free, make your money touring

the more people that have heard you, the more likely the are to pay to see you play.

broncosteven
07-21-2010, 08:00 PM
give away the cds, heck do away with cds' do it full digital for free, make your money touring

the more people that have heard you, the more likely the are to pay to see you play.

What if your a songwriter and are not in a band? Diane Warren has written hundred of hit songs (a lot of it drivel) but she does not play live with a band. How does she get paid?

Your model only works if the band writes it's own material and does not rely on a hired gun songwriter or cover someone elses song.

Broncosfreak_56
07-21-2010, 09:08 PM
How much does it cost to download music? I am hoping to figure out a way to get it for free like the old days.

Where there is an internet there is a way.:thumbs:

watermock
07-21-2010, 09:39 PM
try

save as

Homer Simpson
07-21-2010, 09:47 PM
try

save as

??

What do you mean? There needs to be a file. A host sight or a torrent?

I use utorrent although most people I know used rapidshare until it was just changed for the much worse.

TDmvp
07-22-2010, 01:37 AM
MIRC for the win ...

Kyle
07-22-2010, 01:42 AM
I find it getting harder all the time to DL media of any kind. Not that it is hard to do. Anyone can use google to search for a torrent and figure out how to use utorrent. What is hard is not getting letters from your ISP. You could never share any of the data that you are downloading and you would most likely not be targeted in any of the giant lawsuits that media companies put together, but if nobody shared the technology would die. What does that leave you then? Proxies are alright for some things, and I haven't used one in quite some time, but for technologies like bittorrent they used to kinda suck.

TDmvp
07-22-2010, 03:11 AM
Mirc ..... you hunt down a room with what you want , games , movies , music ...

@find Guns and Roses into chat ...or whatever you are hunting , it's a trigger.

you get a ton of hits from who all in that room has files with that in the title ...


you cut and paste the get trigger and poof full songs in 20 secs , games in a couple of hours , movies whatever ...

the get trigger will look like

!Morphious Guns N' Roses - Live And Let Die.mpg

! then whos pc it's on Morphious and then the file name .....



EVERYTHING is cut and paste on the triggers so it's simple ...


way fast ... no garbage ... no hunting stupid torrents and all that crap ....


MIRC is basically the devils playground ... If you can name it you can find it on Irc ...

You may have seen it on those Dateline shows about stolen credit cards and crap like that ... it's been around since the 80's and will never be stopped or policed.


/end thread ... trust me if you are hunting files and not using irc you are doing it wrong ....


googled and found a brief faq on mirc that may help someone ...
http://www.mp3daze.com/findmp3irc.htm



And T.J. if this is not allowed here just remove it .... no idea on the rules on this stuff on the OM ..

chadta
07-22-2010, 05:25 AM
What if your a songwriter and are not in a band? Diane Warren has written hundred of hit songs (a lot of it drivel) but she does not play live with a band. How does she get paid?

Your model only works if the band writes it's own material and does not rely on a hired gun songwriter or cover someone elses song.

everytime the artist plays said song live give her a fee, i mean if the ones complaining the most about us not paying (the bands) are not them selves infact willing to pay fees for it then too bad for them, why should i feel bad about not paying a fee when they arent passing it on down the line.

its the market deciding the value of something, if people are not willing to pay much for it, then maybe it has little or no value.

brncs_fan
07-22-2010, 08:56 AM
I had a discussion similar to this a few months ago with some of my students. They asked me what I use to get my songs (I use a lot of songs and clips to introduce a topic). I said I purchase them off of iTunes or Amazon depending on price and what I am using them for. "Why don't you just use Limewire or something? That way it is free and you can, like, fill up your iPod and stuff. It's not like you are ever going to get caught"

So I asked them if they had ever had anything stolen from them that mattered to them. They said that they had. So I asked them how that made them feel. They said something to the tune of it not feeling super. So I asked them why then would they want to go and do it to someone else knowing how it made them feel.

I then asked them if they had ever picked up any viruses or anything like that off of Limewire. One replied that he got one that destroyed his laptop and it cost him a pretty penny to get a new one and they had both paid money to have someone take the junk off their machines from downloading songs. So how can it be free music if you have to buy new computers and fix you stuff all the time? "Uhhhhhhhhh.............."

I have done my share of file sharing in the past. Eventually though I grew up and saw it for what it was.

Popps
07-22-2010, 10:20 AM
give away the cds, heck do away with cds' do it full digital for free, make your money touring


You can't really believe that. I'm hoping that's sarcasm.

Popps
07-22-2010, 10:24 AM
its the market deciding the value of something, if people are not willing to pay much for it, then maybe it has little or no value.

Huh?

So, if there was an easy way to steal brand new BMW's... and people did it, would that mean that the "market" for BMW's went down?

Or, would it mean that the market was being illegally manipulated.

Hmmm.... tough one.



This is a very simple concept. For some reason, people just turn into little tiny babies when the subject comes up, because they want to steal things for free.

If this was ANY other product (cars, toothpaste, Broncos tickets)... people would understand. But, because it's INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY, some people simply don't have the intellect to understand how simple this is.

Stealing is stealing. Let's not cover our eyes and pretend it's something else. If you want to steal intellectual property, have at it. Maybe you won't get caught. But, don't try to fool rational adults with dorm-room psychology that this is some kind of legitimate "market" factor.

chawknz
07-22-2010, 10:34 AM
I still don't understand how people expect artists to get paid.

The music model is FUBAR but the artist has a right to get paid something.

By going to their concerts, buying a tshirt, things like that. Artists don't get paid crap from the record companies.

With that said, uTorrent is all I need. (Transmission on the Mac).

TDmvp
07-22-2010, 01:05 PM
give away the cds, heck do away with cds' do it full digital for free, make your money touring

the more people that have heard you, the more likely the are to pay to see you play.

You can't really believe that. I'm hoping that's sarcasm.


He's right Popps ... Now you make your money touring not selling the music ...
You don't get crap per album/song ... you make tons touring .

Irish Stout
07-22-2010, 01:35 PM
You can't really believe that. I'm hoping that's sarcasm.

A lot of bands already do this.

BroncoBuff
07-22-2010, 02:25 PM
Google's Chrome browser has an integrated download system, kinda like Firefox, but not as intrusive and in your face.

For other stuff Limewire and uTorrent. Tixati and Vuze are newer better torrent programs, just haven't got around to them.

broncofan2438
07-22-2010, 02:26 PM
Weedmaps!

BigPlayShay
07-22-2010, 02:40 PM
A lot of bands already do this.

But really this is only established artists that have become successful enough and broken away from record contracts that can pull this off. Even at that, artists like nine inch nails and radiohead that have given away their music have done so with lower quality mp3, and a chance to buy at higher quality or even physical release. The physical release has also contained exclusive material thus making it enticing to buy.

i4jelway7
07-22-2010, 02:54 PM
I use Jdownloader to download files from the following sites:

www.tehparadox.com
www.appfuzion.com
www.thehotzone.org
www.fwint.com

I use utorrent to download stuff from bittorrent sites
I use Peerblock for security which can be downloaded from www.peerblock.com

I use www.eztv.it for tv shows, (great bittorrent site to download tv shows)

i4jelway7
07-22-2010, 02:59 PM
spookyigloo.net

links are hosted at various file hosting sites, i use Jdownloader to download them from those sites.

if you sign up use me as a refferer, great group of people, never been anything ive wanted that i havent been able to find

just signed up on there.. thx for sharing! used username chadta as the referrer

chadta
07-22-2010, 03:00 PM
Huh?

So, if there was an easy way to steal brand new BMW's... and people did it, would that mean that the "market" for BMW's went down?

Or, would it mean that the market was being illegally manipulated.

Hmmm.... tough one.

its not the same at all

bmw's arent sold with the intent that you let everybody drive them, trying to lure you into a BMW race to see how the pros do it, the way music is sold with the plan that it will be played for your friends and family, and neighbours, and maybe youll go buy the album, or go to the concert.

radio stations play songs for free all the time, when was the last time the bmw dealer grabbed you off the sidewalk and gave you a new bmw to take to work ?

dont get me wrong, im not saying its not wrong to do this, what im saying is i dont care, but its not at all the same as the car thing.

BroncoBuff
07-22-2010, 03:59 PM
for music i use super MP3 download, unless i want a whole album, good selection of music on the igloo site tho.

and the cost is nothing, the site does have a pay portion to it, people in the paid section get priority for help over the people who dont pay, but everybody gets help.

Every forum there says there's no posts????

Ray_Lewis'_Victim
07-22-2010, 04:41 PM
uTorrent is all I need. (Transmission on the Mac).

uTorrent is available for mac now. I don't mind transmission, but uTorrent has a lot more features.

chadta
07-22-2010, 05:55 PM
Every forum there says there's no posts????


cant say forsure but i think you have to register to view posts

ill findout

Homer Simpson
07-22-2010, 06:11 PM
Google's Chrome browser has an integrated download system, kinda like Firefox, but not as intrusive and in your face.

For other stuff Limewire and uTorrent. Tixati and Vuze are newer better torrent programs, just haven't got around to them.

I seriously recommend not using Vuze, it is a system hog. Utorrent is just as good, I promise you.

BroncoBuff
07-22-2010, 06:31 PM
I seriously recommend not using Vuze, it is a system hog. Utorrent is just as good, I promise you.

Okay, what about Tixati?

I have no reason to dump uTorrent anyway, doubt I ever would,

broncosteven
07-22-2010, 07:20 PM
its not the same at all

bmw's arent sold with the intent that you let everybody drive them, trying to lure you into a BMW race to see how the pros do it, the way music is sold with the plan that it will be played for your friends and family, and neighbours, and maybe youll go buy the album, or go to the concert.

radio stations play songs for free all the time, when was the last time the bmw dealer grabbed you off the sidewalk and gave you a new bmw to take to work ?

dont get me wrong, im not saying its not wrong to do this, what im saying is i dont care, but its not at all the same as the car thing.

Ummm your really uninformed and it shows.

Radio and commercial TV are free because of advertising. Every time a song is played radio and or TV have to pay the artists performing licensee, usually either ASCAP or BMI, per play. It is not huge but the artist gets paid a residual. This is why having writing credit on a song is big because you get a bigger cut.

It boils down to capitalism, the more product you move the more money one will make, if you have a good contract. Communism/socialism is based on sharing wealth, no one being uber rich.

The way it works is usually when an artist signs they negotiate a deal for a cut of the record sales, the record company usually then LOANS the artist the money to make a record with the artist hoping that they can recoup the loan with record sales. Then after the record is made the record company LOANs the band money to tour and the artist hopes they can recoup it with a good turnout. Many bands have to fold because they are in debt to the record company.

Touring is important, that is why someone in their basement doing demos won't get a contract or their demo's listened to. If a band has developed their own following across a large area then they might start seeing A&R guys at gigs but it is hard for bands to make a decent living on the road until they get reliable bookings. Once a band or artist has a following that a record company can sell to without having to do all the promotion then they usually get signed but the artist has to pay the dues and do the hard stuff 1st.

Some bands give away free music to develop a base that they can show an A&R team. Some established bands usually give a song away to get you to buy the rest of the album (Tom Petty, Peter Gabriel). I like what Radiohead did, allowing the downloader to set the price they are willing to pay. The main goal is to SELL PRODUCT. Once they can move product and start filling bigger halls is when the tours start making money but that is a long haul.

I have a friend from HS who stuck it out and is in a Jam band who is just now starting to break across the US after 10, TEN! years of non stop touring. They have got by but no one owns property or even cars or a retirement account. They are doing it because they love it. They allow recording of the shows an let you download live performances but you have to pay for their CDs.

The music industry is in serious trouble right now and a lot is their own fault but it is wrong to outright steal product.

The only way I would buy your "bands make their money touring" argument is if you bought a ticket to at least one show from every band you "shared"/stole music from. If there is a band that you haven't paid to see but have downloaded their music for free then you have stolen it.

If you like an artist but don't support them they won't be around very long.

chadta
07-22-2010, 07:21 PM
I seriously recommend not using Vuze, it is a system hog. Utorrent is just as good, I promise you.

ill second this, vuze is just a pig

Popps
07-23-2010, 10:20 AM
dont get me wrong, im not saying its not wrong to do this, what im saying is i dont care, but its not at all the same as the car thing.

Of course it's the same.

The owner of intellectual content has every right to distribute and control it as they see fit. If they want to allow it played on the radio, that's their business. If they want to give away free MP3's, that's their business.

If BMW wants to give away cars as promotional items, that's their business.

The creator of intellectual property has every right of ownership that the creator of a physical entity has. Because that content may be distributed and used differently doesn't give the owner/controller any less right to make decisions regarding the financial compensation.

chadta
07-23-2010, 12:45 PM
Of course it's the same.

The owner of intellectual content has every right to distribute and control it as they see fit. If they want to allow it played on the radio, that's their business. If they want to give away free MP3's, that's their business.

If BMW wants to give away cars as promotional items, that's their business.

The creator of intellectual property has every right of ownership that the creator of a physical entity has. Because that content may be distributed and used differently doesn't give the owner/controller any less right to make decisions regarding the financial compensation.

if much like we have tape recorders we had key makers, that everytime we saw a car go by we could make a key, then yeah it would be the same.

the guy who plays his song on the radio knows that everytime it is played it may be recorded, the bmw dosent run the risk having the key copied just by driving by people. So no its not the same.

if you know the risks and do nothing to protect yourself, then you get what you deserve. If i leave my keys in my bmw and then im upset when it gets stolen its not any less wrong, but im still an idiot for leaving the keys in the car, and i shouldnt be surprised that it happened.

Popps
07-23-2010, 11:54 PM
the bmw dosent run the risk having the key copied just by driving by people. So no its not the same..

It's 100%, absolutely the same.

People have simply found a way to steal one product easier than the other.

If someone starts cloning BMW's and selling them for $5K, you can rest assured BMW will have their legal patent upheld.

It's not difficult to clone car designs.

Just because it's possible, doesn't mean it's correct... or that BMW should "expect" people to copy their designs to the letter.


You can choose not to get it, but you're the one with the misunderstanding. The letter of the law is clear, and conceptually, anyone with firing neurons should understand the concept of intellectual property.

misturanderson
07-24-2010, 01:30 AM
if much like we have tape recorders we had key makers, that everytime we saw a car go by we could make a key, then yeah it would be the same.

the guy who plays his song on the radio knows that everytime it is played it may be recorded, the bmw dosent run the risk having the key copied just by driving by people. So no its not the same.

if you know the risks and do nothing to protect yourself, then you get what you deserve. If i leave my keys in my bmw and then im upset when it gets stolen its not any less wrong, but im still an idiot for leaving the keys in the car, and i shouldnt be surprised that it happened.

Don't bother getting in this argument. You won't convince him that he's wrong and he will never stop arguing with you. It's science.

chadta
07-24-2010, 05:52 AM
It's 100%, absolutely the same.

People have simply found a way to steal one product easier than the other.

If someone starts cloning BMW's and selling them for $5K, you can rest assured BMW will have their legal patent upheld.


so now copying a song off the radio and keeping the tape for yourself is the same as mass reproduction of an item for sale ? Wow thats a stretch.


Don't bother getting in this argument. You won't convince him that he's wrong and he will never stop arguing with you. It's science.

its the offseason, what else do we have to do

Popps
07-24-2010, 11:08 AM
so now copying a song off the radio and keeping the tape for yourself is the same as mass reproduction of an item for sale ? Wow thats a stretch.

Nice straw man.

The concept in play here isn't "taping a song off the radio one time for your own personal use."

Do you honestly think any artist in the world would care about that? That went on for 30 years without any controversy. You're probably not old enough to remember the world before the internet, but people used to tape music off the radio with no problem on either side.

The concept in play here is mass formats for sharing illegal digital copies of entire records/movies without the consent of the owners of that intellectual property.


If you're going to discuss the topic. Don't play games.

Kyle
07-24-2010, 01:01 PM
The biggest difference I see between now and 20-25 years ago is scale. 20 years ago my friends and I would go to the music store and each buy a tape and split the cost of a pack of blanks. We would then hang out the rest of the day and night and make a copy for each of us of each tape. I can not be the only person in the world to have shared tapes in this fashion. The thing is now, I can share it to an unbelievable number of people at the same time. Nobody scoffed at giving a recording to a few people. They scoff at giving it to a million. I think it makes sense for them to be mad. It also makes sense for bands in this age to not use the huge labels that are going to sell albums for 20+ dollars and give artists pennies. If a reasonably priced channel of distribution were set up more people might use it. You will never get complete compliance, but you never had it before so why try for it now?

OABB
07-24-2010, 01:10 PM
Spankwire just plays the movies off the site. No need to download.

chadta
07-24-2010, 06:11 PM
The concept in play here isn't "taping a song off the radio one time for your own personal use."

Swing and a miss

the original post and question was, what do you use to download, NOT what do you use to share. The poster wanted to download one copy for himself of whatever was in question. You are the one who brought up the stupid car theft thing.

You're probably not old enough to remember the world before the internet, but people used to tape music off the radio with no problem on either side.

wow you sure nailed that :oyvey:

The concept in play here is mass formats for sharing illegal digital copies of entire records/movies without the consent of the owners of that intellectual property.

Never did the poster say he wanted to mass produce the songs to distribute either for free or for a fee. He wanted one copy, and wanted to know what was used by others, would it have been better if he asked what radio station we taped our songs off of ?

If you're going to discuss the topic. Don't play games.

your the one who keeps moving the goalposts

ZONA
07-24-2010, 09:11 PM
MIRC for the win ...

Damn, going old school on us eh? If you don't mind dealing with long waits and lame bot commands, MIRC is alright.

I just google what I want and throw mediafire behind and I usually find what I want, uncorrupted.

Popps
07-24-2010, 10:13 PM
Swing and a miss

the original post and question was, what do you use to download, NOT what do you use to share.

Yea, because people are paying for Limewire, torrents and other "downloading" methods, right?

iTunes? Yes.

Most others? No.

As for moving the goal posts, you're the guy talking about taping songs off the radio on a downloading thread.



Like I said, do what you want... just don't use sophomore logic on grown ups and expect them to fall for it.

TDmvp
07-24-2010, 11:44 PM
Damn, going old school on us eh? If you don't mind dealing with long waits and lame bot commands, MIRC is alright.

I just google what I want and throw mediafire behind and I usually find what I want, uncorrupted.

ROFL! yea it is pretty damn old school ...

But as far as wait times it's not really that bad and at least it's super fast downloading and no waiting on seeds like torrents...

Never seen a faster less bs filled way to get anything and I've tried most...
Always move back to mirc. no fuss .

That One Guy
07-25-2010, 02:06 PM
The reality for me is that 99% of what I download, I wouldn't buy. A while back, I downloaded like every Alabama song they ever did. Would I pay $60-$100 for that set? No chance. So the artist wasn't going to see any money from me either way.

Once it's established that I'm not paying for it, who loses if I find it for free and say, "sure, I'll put it on my computer"?

The reality is that intellectual property spreads so easily that it really holds no value. They need to market it as such. Physical property holds value as you can't enjoy said item without paying. Intellectual property doesn't have those same safeguards so it needs to be treated as such. Make the money from advertising and physical property and recognize it for what it is.

Popps
07-25-2010, 03:23 PM
The reality is that intellectual property spreads so easily that it really holds no value. .

So, as long as we find an easy way to steal things, it makes it O.K.?



How about your identity?



That's easily stolen. Very easily.


That hold any "value" to you?



Again, just steal music... fine. Steal away. But, don't justify your stealing with some jr. high school debate team nonsense.

That One Guy
07-25-2010, 03:55 PM
So, as long as we find an easy way to steal things, it makes it O.K.?



How about your identity?



That's easily stolen. Very easily.


That hold any "value" to you?



Again, just steal music... fine. Steal away. But, don't justify your stealing with some jr. high school debate team nonsense.

A, you're kinda being a dick here with your condescending attitude. If you're better than us, go find a thread elsewhere to participate. The OP asked and thus here we are. Maybe start a thread about the horrors of downloading music?

B, nothing is "stolen" if an owner isn't left without something. The only thing being taken from anyone is an opportunity to make money but if I'm not going to spend my money on their insanely inflated prices, that opportunity was lost long before I chose to download. So, what's lost to make the item stolen?

C, isn't the only violation of law in distributing copywrited material? Is possession a crime? Don't know that I've seen anyone prosecuted for possession of stolen goods because they were found with an ipod full of downloaded music. Honestly don't know the law here.

That One Guy
07-25-2010, 03:57 PM
Oh, and having an identity stolen is intended to leave someone else in a mess. You're trying to steal their money, credit, etc. That's leaving the owner without a physical asset. Completely different. Nice try.

chadta
07-25-2010, 05:26 PM
Again, just steal music... fine. Steal away. But, don't justify your stealing with some jr. high school debate team nonsense.

see post below, it is wrong, no doubt about it, but dont tell me its the same as stealing a car, its NOT

dont get me wrong, im not saying its not wrong to do this, what im saying is i dont care, but its not at all the same as the car thing.

The guy doing the real wrong is the guy uploading it, you know, we may be guilty of possession of stolen property, but the guy uploading it is committing armed robbery, or grand theft auto if you will, and if you cant see the difference then this discussion is over.


Oh, and having an identity stolen is intended to leave someone else in a mess. You're trying to steal their money, credit, etc. That's leaving the owner without a physical asset. Completely different. Nice try.

hey this guy thinks stealing a car is the same as downloading music tho so are you really surprised

Popps
07-25-2010, 06:24 PM
see post below, it is wrong, no doubt about it, but dont tell me its the same as stealing a car, its NOT

Stealing property is stealing property.

Just because one is easier to do and the item is less expensive... doesn't make it not stealing.

It's the same. Theft is theft. If you made your living selling content you created, you'd likely have no trouble understanding this very simple concept.
I've worked on both sides of the creative content distribution world almost my entire life. So, it's very simple for me to understand as a creator, a purchaser and as a seller.

s

The guy doing the real wrong is the guy uploading it, you know, we may be guilty of possession of stolen property, but the guy uploading it is committing armed robbery, or grand theft auto if you will, and if you cant see the difference then this discussion is over.

Umm... huh?

So, only drug SELLERS should be arrested, not those buying drugs? How about illegal weapons? Only the sellers?

You're telling me that it's O.K. to take something that was obtained illegally, as long as you didn't steal it yourself?

You realize you can be arrested for "possession of stolen property," right?


s
hey this guy thinks stealing a car is the same as downloading music tho so are you really surprised

It's only the same thing in so much as what's legal is legal, and what's illegal is illegal.

You're the guy attempting to paint a pretty picture of one theft, while seemingly understanding the illegal nature of the other.

Theft is theft. Cars, bikes, gum, music, videos.

Theft is theft.

An easy or undetectable avenue for committing a crime doesn't make it less of a crime.

TDmvp
07-25-2010, 06:38 PM
Stealing property is stealing property.

Just because one is easier to do and the item is less expensive... doesn't make it not stealing.

It's the same. Theft is theft. If you made your living selling content you created, you'd likely have no trouble understanding this very simple concept.
I've worked on both sides of the creative content distribution world almost my entire life. So, it's very simple for me to understand as a creator, a purchaser and as a seller.



Umm... huh?

So, only drug SELLERS should be arrested, not those buying drugs? How about illegal weapons? Only the sellers?

You're telling me that it's O.K. to take something that was obtained illegally, as long as you didn't steal it yourself?

You realize you can be arrested for "possession of stolen property," right?




It's only the same thing in so much as what's legal is legal, and what's illegal is illegal.

You're the guy attempting to paint a pretty picture of one theft, while seemingly understanding the illegal nature of the other.

Theft is theft. Cars, bikes, gum, music, videos.

Theft is theft.

An easy or undetectable avenue for committing a crime doesn't make it less of a crime.



http://wrotemeamanual.files.wordpress.com/2010/01/high_horse.jpg already ...

That One Guy
07-25-2010, 06:47 PM
An easy or undetectable avenue for committing a crime doesn't make it less of a crime.

When you steal a car, you're stealing physical property. When you download music, you're stealing potential to make money. Stealing potential does not equal theft.

Another issue I've had with this issue is to what degree are you entitled to the intellectual property? I've owned hundreds of CDs since they came out almost 20 years ago. Do I have the right to download any song I once paid for? Do I lose all rights to music once the CD got lost or broken? If I buy the CD, copy it, then sell the CD... did I lose my rights to the intellectual property? Did the buyer of a used CD actually buy the rights even though the seller didn't see any money from the sale?

It's intellectual property. It's not physical property. Totally different scenarios.

Popps
07-25-2010, 08:07 PM
It's intellectual property. It's not physical property. Totally different scenarios.

Wrong.

Legally wrong, logically wrong... and pretty much wrong by any other measurement.


We have things in this country called copyrights and patents.

A script isn't "physical property."

Go re-write Star Wars and release it, and let me know how that goes for you.




Read up. Gain a better understanding, and we'll regroup.

Popps
07-25-2010, 08:09 PM
http://wrotemeamanual.files.wordpress.com/2010/01/high_horse.jpg already ...

You're misunderstanding, TD... and unlike many here, I know you... and I know you're smart enough to understand my point.

I'm not on a high horse at all.

I break the speed limit. I water my grass on days I'm not supposed to.

I break laws.

The difference is, I don't attempt to justify my actions with ridiculous pseudo-logic and straw-man arguments.

We all do things wrong, or "illegal." I'm sure of it.


I'm not casting judgment on those who steal. I don't happen to agree with it, but I'm not judging people.


But, it IS what it IS.


You're clearly smart enough to understand that.

TDmvp
07-25-2010, 08:30 PM
You're misunderstanding, TD... and unlike many here, I know you... and I know you're smart enough to understand my point.

I'm not on a high horse at all.

I break the speed limit. I water my grass on days I'm not supposed to.

I break laws.

The difference is, I don't attempt to justify my actions with ridiculous pseudo-logic and straw-man arguments.

We all do things wrong, or "illegal." I'm sure of it.


I'm not casting judgment on those who steal. I don't happen to agree with it, but I'm not judging people.


But, it IS what it IS.


You're clearly smart enough to understand that.



I've sang for bands for a long time , I understand where you are coming from totally Popps , I just know there is no way to stop it and it's been going on long before the net in some form or another....

The industry is totally different now then 10 years ago. With be able to buy really nice recording equipment now for a few grand that would have been 100 grand in the 80's and record and sell your music on the net without needing a major label to do your craft ... now the money is in the show not the music.

As when you do sign with a major label the money you get from album sales is crap anyway. The money as far as for the band has really always been in the tour and merchandise.


I understand you Popps that it is still dirty to pirate music . But it's just not really that big of deal in the grand scheme.

Great bands with great music and big followings do pretty well regardless of the music theft .

Cmac821
07-25-2010, 09:03 PM
The idea of criminal theft and downloading music have been separated to the point people deny being they are thieves. When I download music it doesn't seem like a crime, their are tons of sites who host it. Never heard of any one being arrested for it, can't be that bad.

But what do I know, I can't speak for everybody.

broncosteven
07-25-2010, 09:03 PM
A, you're kinda being a dick here with your condescending attitude. If you're better than us, go find a thread elsewhere to participate. The OP asked and thus here we are. Maybe start a thread about the horrors of downloading music?

B, nothing is "stolen" if an owner isn't left without something. The only thing being taken from anyone is an opportunity to make money but if I'm not going to spend my money on their insanely inflated prices, that opportunity was lost long before I chose to download. So, what's lost to make the item stolen?

C, isn't the only violation of law in distributing copywrited material? Is possession a crime? Don't know that I've seen anyone prosecuted for possession of stolen goods because they were found with an ipod full of downloaded music. Honestly don't know the law here.

A: post #17 in this thread asked for free music sites, that is what launched this argument.

B: The item that was stolen was the original UPLOADED song/movie. Lets say that a song is UPLOADED once and downloaded 2,000 times. The band is out 2,000 people that may have bought an album or even 1 MP3. But this is the internet so it is more like a unit is uploaded 2,000 times and downloaded a 100 times for each upload, it becomes exponential. Those lost sales effect not only an artists income but their charting on Billboard and radio count down shows, not to mention record sale esclators in their contracts.

The price is what the market will bear, the way capitalism works. The issue is that when the Internet spread and people started peer downloading sites it suddenly became cool to steal because everyone else did it. It's like thinking no one gets hurt when you buy pot or pay for a hooker.

C: Do you remember Napster getting busted? How old were you guys back in 2000?

http://news.cnet.com/2100-1023-240222.html

Here is something more recent: http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/09/10/rabid_neurosis_busted/

Every DVD starts with an anti-piracy warning stating a $250,000 fine and 5 year jail sentence.

If your unsure about your usage policy look it up online or contact the label selling the product.

Usually your rights allow you to make multiple backup copies of your CD/DVD and or transfer it to other mediums like MP3 for your usage. It is only when you distribute those copies that you break your agreement and it becomes piracy. Just like those things you probally click "I agree" (without reading) for software on your PC.

http://www.copyright.gov/help/faq/faq-definitions.html
What is copyright infringement?
As a general matter, copyright infringement occurs when a copyrighted work is reproduced, distributed, performed, publicly displayed, or made into a derivative work without the permission of the copyright owner.

Piracy was rampant in computer software, the same arguments were raised, it's too expensive, no one gets hurt, nothing is stolen. This is why you buy licenses with MEDIA today rather than "software" 10 years ago. If the music industry would change their format to a License model and let people choose their media and find a way to manage the media license like computer software does this would be a non-issue.

I am cool with people trying before buying but at some point buy the product you like, don't rip it off.

broncosteven
07-25-2010, 09:13 PM
...

Great bands with great music and big followings do pretty well regardless of the music theft .

It's the no-name songwriters behind the scenes that I am worried about.

Jefferson Starship was a marginal band on the verge of collapse before they covered Diane Warren and Albert Hammond in mid 80's. They just recored and played the songs they didn't write "Built this city" or "Nothing's gonna stop us now".

The licensing model for the music industry needs to change.

Cmac821
07-25-2010, 09:14 PM
To be fair music should not cost as much as it does. You can run up the bill on something you may not like a month later

broncosteven
07-25-2010, 09:21 PM
To be fair music should not cost as much as it does. You can run up the bill on something you may not like a month later

Same thing could be said about any purchase, a toy or shirt game etc... I think CD's are priced fair I don't know what MP3's go for, I prefer the higher sampling rate of CD's and the price hasn't changed much from their inception in 82 considering inflation. If you shop around you can find new releases from $12-16 bucks. I think the sweet spot should be $10-12 bucks for a full album.

Cmac821
07-25-2010, 09:30 PM
Same thing could be said about any purchase, a toy or shirt game etc... I think CD's are priced fair I don't know what MP3's go for, I prefer the higher sampling rate of CD's and the price hasn't changed much from their inception in 82 considering inflation. If you shop around you can find new releases from $12-16 bucks. I think the sweet spot should be $10-12 bucks for a full album.

I only buy albums from a few select bands so it has been a while and maybe I spoke without knowing because I thought they were it $25 range. I need to stay away from the stores and look online.

It's evident I don't see what downloading music does or I might ignore it, so I will go back to lurking.

That One Guy
07-25-2010, 09:44 PM
A: post #17 in this thread asked for free music sites, that is what launched this argument.

B: The item that was stolen was the original UPLOADED song/movie. Lets say that a song is UPLOADED once and downloaded 2,000 times. The band is out 2,000 people that may have bought an album or even 1 MP3. But this is the internet so it is more like a unit is uploaded 2,000 times and downloaded a 100 times for each upload, it becomes exponential. Those lost sales effect not only an artists income but their charting on Billboard and radio count down shows, not to mention record sale esclators in their contracts.

The price is what the market will bear, the way capitalism works. The issue is that when the Internet spread and people started peer downloading sites it suddenly became cool to steal because everyone else did it. It's like thinking no one gets hurt when you buy pot or pay for a hooker.

C: Do you remember Napster getting busted? How old were you guys back in 2000?

http://news.cnet.com/2100-1023-240222.html

Here is something more recent: http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/09/10/rabid_neurosis_busted/

Every DVD starts with an anti-piracy warning stating a $250,000 fine and 5 year jail sentence.

If your unsure about your usage policy look it up online or contact the label selling the product.

Usually your rights allow you to make multiple backup copies of your CD/DVD and or transfer it to other mediums like MP3 for your usage. It is only when you distribute those copies that you break your agreement and it becomes piracy. Just like those things you probally click "I agree" (without reading) for software on your PC.

http://www.copyright.gov/help/faq/faq-definitions.html
What is copyright infringement?
As a general matter, copyright infringement occurs when a copyrighted work is reproduced, distributed, performed, publicly displayed, or made into a derivative work without the permission of the copyright owner.

Piracy was rampant in computer software, the same arguments were raised, it's too expensive, no one gets hurt, nothing is stolen. This is why you buy licenses with MEDIA today rather than "software" 10 years ago. If the music industry would change their format to a License model and let people choose their media and find a way to manage the media license like computer software does this would be a non-issue.

I am cool with people trying before buying but at some point buy the product you like, don't rip it off.

I'm not sure if you're agreeing, disagreeing, or just adding details.

A, I said OP asked - you said post 17 did. OP made post 17.

B, So as long as I don't redistribute, you have no issue with me? Because I got caught by my ISP once upon a time, I ensure all seeding is turned off on torrents. I'm merely a leacher. That's also part of the reason I asked C.

C, Napster was killed because they were offering all the songs on a distribution server. Again, are you agreeing, disagreeing, or providing more facts?

I said before, I'm essentially not buying any music. If I wanted to hear a single song, I might pay the buck for it. That's gonna be if someone tells me to check out such and such song and I just can't find it anywhere. Likelyhood there, even, is that it's on youtube. Beyond that, I refuse to pay $11-$30 for a CD as it'll fall somewhere between 'listened to once or twice' and 'forgotten about'. I support artists by listening to the radio and watching channels like CMT occasionally.

I absolutely wont pay $1+ per song to own the right to listen to it when I want. It's not worth it to me. Before I learned you could turn off the upload portion on torrent programs, I just didn't download anything for years. I also wont spread it beyond me. How am I hurting the industry any more by downloading?

RhymesayersDU
07-25-2010, 09:44 PM
I only buy albums from a few select bands so it has been a while and maybe I spoke without knowing because I thought they were it $25 range. I need to stay away from the stores and look online.

Well they hit that high point but they've come back down drastically. I know Best Buy sells a lot of new releases from big-name artists for $9.99 now.

Although I'm like you. There are select artists I make a point to support, and everybody else gets downloaded.

What's funny in this thread is that I actually agree with Popps, which never happens. Anybody trying to spin or justify downloading is hilarious. I hear these arguments on various forums all the time. The fact is, Popps is right here. He hit the nail on the head with the line about speeding and such. We choose what laws to follow and we roll the dice on others. It could be speeding. It could be littering, or jay-walking, etc. Like I said, I download 99% of everything I watch/listen to. But I do it knowing full-well what I'm doing. Saying that downloading isn't stealing is ridiculously comical. It is. But some of us choose to do it and some of us don't. And I'm not trying to lecture, either. Like I said, I download music. But I have no delusions about what I'm doing.

I'm actually laying off the DVD downloads now. Not for any moral stance, but just because I really don't need any kind of drama in my life, even if the chance is remote I'd get caught. I'm probably going to just get Netflix soon.

That One Guy
07-25-2010, 09:49 PM
Well they hit that high point but they've come back down drastically. I know Best Buy sells a lot of new releases from big-name artists for $9.99 now.

Although I'm like you. There are select artists I make a point to support, and everybody else gets downloaded.

What's funny in this thread is that I actually agree with Popps, which never happens. Anybody trying to spin or justify downloading is hilarious. I hear these arguments on various forums all the time. The fact is, Popps is right here. He hit the nail on the head with the line about speeding and such. We choose what laws to follow and we roll the dice on others. It could be speeding. It could be littering, or jay-walking, etc. Like I said, I download 99% of everything I watch/listen to. But I do it knowing full-well what I'm doing. Saying that downloading isn't stealing is ridiculously comical. It is. But some of us choose to do it and some of us don't. And I'm not trying to lecture, either. Like I said, I download music. But I have no delusions about what I'm doing.

I'm actually laying off the DVD downloads now. Not for any moral stance, but just because I really don't need any kind of drama in my life, even if the chance is remote I'd get caught. I'm probably going to just get Netflix soon.

Well, again, I've always been under the impression that downloading isn't illegal. Someone even stated it above. The warnings at the beginning of movies and such state that it's illegal to redistribute, make a public showing of, etc. Downloading without paying for isn't cited. Those "downloading movies is stealing" seem like a moral plea and that's what I always saw them for.

It almost seems like it'd be impossible to say the downloader is committing a crime as one shouldn't be required to check the legality of the offering before downloading something. Sure, we can say one should generally know what's copywritten and what's not but legality is solely based on proveable fact.

RhymesayersDU
07-25-2010, 09:53 PM
Well, again, I've always been under the impression that downloading isn't illegal. Someone even stated it above. The warnings at the beginning of movies and such state that it's illegal to redistribute, make a public showing of, etc. Downloading without paying for isn't cited. Those "downloading movies is stealing" seem like a moral plea and that's what I always saw them for.

It almost seems like it'd be impossible to say the downloader is committing a crime as one shouldn't be required to check the legality of the offering before downloading something. Sure, we can say one should generally know what's copywritten and what's not but legality is solely based on proveable fact.

Well I mean, if we're talking purely legal, I think you may be correct. You're comment earlier about uploading is valid. I don't claim to know the letter of the law. But I do believe any time you get a letter from your ISP it's because of uploading. So perhaps downloading by itself isn't a crime. I just see it all as a crime that again, I choose to roll the dice on.

That One Guy
07-25-2010, 09:54 PM
Well I mean, if we're talking purely legal, I think you may be correct. You're comment earlier about uploading is valid. I don't claim to know the letter of the law. But I do believe any time you get a letter from your ISP it's because of uploading. So perhaps downloading by itself isn't a crime. I just see it all as a crime that again, I choose to roll the dice on.

OK, agreed then. I sometimes feel bad as a leech on the community because I don't spread but in that facet, I'm just not taking the risk. As far as I know, we're within the limits of the law. We're all rolling dice though.

chadta
07-26-2010, 05:35 AM
So, only drug SELLERS should be arrested, not those buying drugs? How about illegal weapons? Only the sellers?

You're telling me that it's O.K. to take something that was obtained illegally, as long as you didn't steal it yourself?

You realize you can be arrested for "possession of stolen property," right?


no not at all, and ive said about a half dozen times its still wrong, but its not as wrong, now if you cant see the difference well thats your problem. Whats easier to stop 1 guy selling or 50 guys buying ? why is it that hookers and drug dealers go to jail and johns and joint smokers get a ticket ? the law can see the difference i dont know why you cant.


Theft is theft. Cars, bikes, gum, music, videos.

Theft is theft.


theft is not theft, gum would be petty theft, cars would be grand theft, do i really need to get the crayons out?

listen ive never said its not stealing, so i dont know where you got that idea, i just dont care that it is.

Do I have the right to download any song I once paid for?

ive wondered about that myself, cuz a fair chunk of my mp3 collection has been downloaded, but i also have the cd, its just easier and faster to download then it is to make the mp3's myself.

broncosteven
07-26-2010, 09:07 PM
I just came across this while catching up with MaximumPC:

http://www.maximumpc.com/article/news/ufc_demands_disclosure_streaming_pirates_ip_addres ses

Interesting and pertinent

Popps
07-26-2010, 10:05 PM
OK, agreed then. I sometimes feel bad as a leech on the community .

So, you're stealing stuff... but you feel bad because you're not giving other people enough stolen stuff?




At least you've got a good conscience.

That One Guy
07-26-2010, 11:47 PM
So, you're stealing stuff... but you feel bad because you're not giving other people enough stolen stuff?




At least you've got a good conscience.

So you skip a half dozen posts to take what you think to be something supporting your position or that you can respond to without giving any ground?

Keep fighting the good fight, champion.

Taco John
07-26-2010, 11:49 PM
I own probably 200 DVD movies, Television seasons, and kids shows. I spent FOREVER with my spare laptop, ripping the DVD files that I own so that I could load them onto the media center that I built with my old Xbox (which is sweet!).

So my DVD for the Three Amigos was scratched up, and I couldn't rip it to a digital file. So I went to Amazon, and bought the digital version from them. I was so pumped to be reunited with one of my favorite comedies. Except that I wasn't. It turned out that due to the DRM crap they put on there, the only way that I can watch that movie is if I want to sit here at my computer and watch it through Amazon's proprietary "Unbox" viewer. I can't even use the much awesome VLC player on it - I have to use their proprietary crap.

I have bought this program two times around - the first time on DVD, and the second time through Amazon. All I want is a version of the show that I can put on a hard drive and watch through my XBMC modified Xbox. Here is my question: am I a thief if I decide to go to a torrent site to download the file?

chadta
07-27-2010, 05:54 AM
I just came across this while catching up with MaximumPC:

http://www.maximumpc.com/article/news/ufc_demands_disclosure_streaming_pirates_ip_addres ses

Interesting and pertinent


"more than 36,000 viewers tuned into an illegal stream on Ustream and Justin.tv that originated from a single IP address. Six weeks later, the same IP address hosted a stream of a pay-per-view event for 78,000 fans."

"UFC is apparently only after individuals that uploaded the content, not those that watched it."


See thats what im talking about Ufc realizes the single person watching isnt the problem, its the guy uploading, where have i heard that before, popps you still here ?

anyhow, im one of those guys with ufc, i really dont like it, i think its a wardrobe malfunction away from being gay porn, but alot of my friends do, so if the ppv has a big match i may try and watch it online, just so i know what the heck they are talkin about the next day, peer pressure if you will.

But no way would i ever pay for any of it, if i couldnt get it for free i wouldnt watch it at all, heck i hav 3 streams that i know i can watch, if they are too bad or go down i dont watch it, its not even worth looking for to me.


Here is my question: am I a thief if I decide to go to a torrent site to download the file?

NO

your a little nieve for paying for it once, but of good moral character

but your down right stupid for paying for it twice

:thanku:

broncosteven
07-27-2010, 11:54 AM
I own probably 200 DVD movies, Television seasons, and kids shows. I spent FOREVER with my spare laptop, ripping the DVD files that I own so that I could load them onto the media center that I built with my old Xbox (which is sweet!).

So my DVD for the Three Amigos was scratched up, and I couldn't rip it to a digital file. So I went to Amazon, and bought the digital version from them. I was so pumped to be reunited with one of my favorite comedies. Except that I wasn't. It turned out that due to the DRM crap they put on there, the only way that I can watch that movie is if I want to sit here at my computer and watch it through Amazon's proprietary "Unbox" viewer. I can't even use the much awesome VLC player on it - I have to use their proprietary crap.

I have bought this program two times around - the first time on DVD, and the second time through Amazon. All I want is a version of the show that I can put on a hard drive and watch through my XBMC modified Xbox. Here is my question: am I a thief if I decide to go to a torrent site to download the file?

This is why the Music industry needs to go to a license based system.

The problem is controlling licenses across multiple platforms and legacy equipment. People want to buy music/movie and watch/listen when they get it. No one including me wants the hassle of licensing before use, I am ripping the plastic off in the car and shoving the cd in the car player while in the lot.

I know I have had to buy multiple copies of my favorite CD's because I wore them out. It would be nice to have the option of a turn in system where you can turn in hardware based media for x number (say 2 or 3) of times for new product or ablity to download your purchase forever.

I have subscriptions to Keyboard and EM and handling piracy and free downloads is a hot button issue.

BTW Taco if you have the original scratched up original dvd that won't play and a bittorrent copy that you can play for your own use I don't see where anyone could see a problem with having a backup copy. It is the people who don't bother to buy anything that are hosing it up for everyone.

DomCasual
07-27-2010, 12:10 PM
It's the no-name songwriters behind the scenes that I am worried about.

Jefferson Starship was a marginal band on the verge of collapse before they covered Diane Warren and Albert Hammond in mid 80's. They just recored and played the songs they didn't write "Built this city" or "Nothing's gonna stop us now".

The licensing model for the music industry needs to change.

Dear Lord, those are awful songs.

jhns
07-27-2010, 12:25 PM
Here is my question: am I a thief if I decide to go to a torrent site to download the file?

Technically, yes you are. I doubt they would ever go after you though.

broncosteven
07-27-2010, 12:31 PM
Dear Lord, those are awful songs.

Actually hearing Hammonds version of Nothing's gonna stop us put it in a differnet light for me. Still not great but I think a lot of the suckage came from bad rock star hair in those videos. You could tell he wrote it from a differnet place than the way Starship covered it.

BTW most of what Warren writes is soul-less drivel but it sells big time, think Aerosmith...

Popps
07-27-2010, 12:41 PM
[code]

See thats what im talking about Ufc realizes the single person watching isnt the problem, its the guy uploading, where have i heard that before, popps you still here ?

You can't possibly be this dumb.

Honestly, at a certain point... you have to be joking.



For real, you're kidding, right?



You think UFC is going after the uploaders because they don't care that people out there are watching?

The ****ing REASON they're going after the uploaders is because people ARE out there watching.


But, I'm fairly sure you're just joking, at this point. No one could possibly really believe what you're posting.

Popps
07-27-2010, 12:43 PM
So you skip a half dozen posts to take what you think to be something supporting your position or that you can respond to without giving any ground?

Keep fighting the good fight, champion.


Hey, you're the guy who says it's fine to steal since someone has made it easy to do.


Oh, and you also think someone being asked to carry a piece of equipment at football practice is "hazing" and should be banned.


You're batting .1000 around here, chief.

Taco John
07-27-2010, 02:26 PM
This is why the Music industry needs to go to a license based system.

The problem is controlling licenses across multiple platforms and legacy equipment. People want to buy music/movie and watch/listen when they get it. No one including me wants the hassle of licensing before use, I am ripping the plastic off in the car and shoving the cd in the car player while in the lot.

I know I have had to buy multiple copies of my favorite CD's because I wore them out. It would be nice to have the option of a turn in system where you can turn in hardware based media for x number (say 2 or 3) of times for new product or ablity to download your purchase forever.

I have subscriptions to Keyboard and EM and handling piracy and free downloads is a hot button issue.

BTW Taco if you have the original scratched up original dvd that won't play and a bittorrent copy that you can play for your own use I don't see where anyone could see a problem with having a backup copy. It is the people who don't bother to buy anything that are hosing it up for everyone.

I am not going to sign up with a liscencing service for my stuff. No way in hell. I guess if it's part of the process for Amazon or Itunes, fine. If they require me to register with their liscencing service, I'll find another way to get the materials. I guess that's theivery, but there's no way in hell that I'm going to give them my information to listen to a CD.

bowtown
07-27-2010, 02:26 PM
This thread has become way too bogged down in stupid bickering and debate. I propose we start from scratch and create a new one.

Lev Vyvanse
07-27-2010, 02:32 PM
This thread has become way too bogged down in stupid bickering and debate. I propose we start from scratch and create a new one.

Some asshole would just derail the thread.

chadta
07-27-2010, 04:00 PM
You think UFC is going after the uploaders because they don't care that people out there are watching?

The ****ing REASON they're going after the uploaders is because people ARE out there watching.

are you for real ? here ill get the crayons out for ya

UFC said one guy hosted for 38,000 2 fights ago, and 78,000 last fight, quick math thats what ? 116,000 you shut down the guy uploading it, you shut down ALL 116,000 thieves or you could do it your way and go after the end user, and then have 115,999 more people to go after. What is gonna be more cost effective ? i mean if the problem with it being stolen is that its costing you money, why would you spend money going after 116,000 people instead of just going after 1 ? DUH :wave:

broncosteven
07-27-2010, 04:23 PM
I am not going to sign up with a liscencing service for my stuff. No way in hell. I guess if it's part of the process for Amazon or Itunes, fine. If they require me to register with their liscencing service, I'll find another way to get the materials. I guess that's theivery, but there's no way in hell that I'm going to give them my information to listen to a CD.

That's the main problem, that and authorizing the licenses. It is easy with PC software or online downloads because your likely connected to the Internet already but how do you license a widget?

It isn't going to be solved any time soon.

broncosteven
07-27-2010, 04:30 PM
are you for real ? here ill get the crayons out for ya

UFC said one guy hosted for 38,000 2 fights ago, and 78,000 last fight, quick math thats what ? 116,000 you shut down the guy uploading it, you shut down ALL 116,000 thieves or you could do it your way and go after the end user, and then have 115,999 more people to go after. What is gonna be more cost effective ? i mean if the problem with it being stolen is that its costing you money, why would you spend money going after 116,000 people instead of just going after 1 ? DUH :wave:

Check out David Gerrold's take on Maximum PC (I think I posted it somewhere here) he was the writer who wrote Trouble with Tribbles episode on ST.

http://www.maximumpc.com/article/columns/future_tense_piracy_revisited

http://www.maximumpc.com/article/columns/future_tense_spam_lot

He knows his stuff.

That One Guy
07-27-2010, 05:27 PM
Hey, you're the guy who says it's fine to steal since someone has made it easy to do.


Oh, and you also think someone being asked to carry a piece of equipment at football practice is "hazing" and should be banned.


You're batting .1000 around here, chief.

Since you've avoided what I asked as an honest question, Ill make this point exact.

Please show me where a downloader is violating any law. An uploader is violating redistribution laws but what is the downloader violating? Please, again, legally not morally.

That One Guy
07-27-2010, 05:28 PM
Technically, yes you are. I doubt they would ever go after you though.

Got anything to back this position?

Rock Chalk
07-27-2010, 05:29 PM
Hey, you're the guy who says it's fine to steal since someone has made it easy to do.


Oh, and you also think someone being asked to carry a piece of equipment at football practice is "hazing" and should be banned.


You're batting .1000 around here, chief.

Who's really stealing? The RIAA or the user? The artists dont make money on CDs either way, the RIAA does and they overcharge for **** music so really, who is REALLY stealing? If you pay for it, the RIAA is, if you dont, you are. Either way, the artist is the one that gets ****ed. They make their money on tours.

Taco John
07-27-2010, 05:36 PM
Who's really stealing? The RIAA or the user? The artists dont make money on CDs either way, the RIAA does and they overcharge for **** music so really, who is REALLY stealing? If you pay for it, the RIAA is, if you dont, you are. Either way, the artist is the one that gets ****ed. They make their money on tours.


There are jobs involved in that middle layer. I mean, artists aren't signing on with record companies just for the sake of handing them cash that they'd otherwise be making by themselves...

Rock Chalk
07-27-2010, 05:40 PM
There are jobs involved in that middle layer. I mean, artists aren't signing on with record companies just for the sake of handing them cash that they'd otherwise be making by themselves...

Right, well look at it this way Isaac.

Im not buying Lady Gaga. Im not letting my wife spend money on Lady Gaga. So either way they aren't getting my money. I will download lady gaga for my wife if she requests it however. So who is getting screwed? No one loses my way, but I do win.

Either way the RIAA, the people in the middle and Lady Gaga are not getting my hard earned money for their crap. Whether I get to listen to it or not is irrelevant.

And what is so different about downloading music from teh interwebz and recording it off the radio which is arguably easier to do? Nothing, nothing at all and yet no one complained when people did that did they? No they did not.

daysofcoleco
07-27-2010, 09:09 PM
Isn't it enough that I have their words and music in my head and I tell my friends how great this band is?
Now they want money on top of that???
What more do they want? - the greedy fkn bastards.

Popps
07-27-2010, 10:05 PM
Who's really stealing? The RIAA or the user? The artists dont make money on CDs either way, the RIAA does and they overcharge for **** music so really, who is REALLY stealing? If you pay for it, the RIAA is, if you dont, you are. Either way, the artist is the one that gets ****ed. They make their money on tours.

Artists make money on royalties and publishing rights. Very few artists can live on "tour" money. You can only tour so often and for so long.

Intellectual property is a highly crucial element of our society, and will only be more important going forward. Yes, it'll be harder to protect, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't try to protect those who create.

Taco John
07-27-2010, 10:47 PM
Right, well look at it this way Isaac.

Im not buying Lady Gaga. Im not letting my wife spend money on Lady Gaga. So either way they aren't getting my money. I will download lady gaga for my wife if she requests it however. So who is getting screwed? No one loses my way, but I do win.

Well, the people you're stealing from in order to make your wife happy are getting screwed.

TDmvp
07-27-2010, 10:48 PM
Artists make money on royalties and publishing rights. Very few artists can live on "tour" money. You can only tour so often and for so long.

Intellectual property is a highly crucial element of our society, and will only be more important going forward. Yes, it'll be harder to protect, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't try to protect those who create.


Do you play music Popps ? as far as what you said about only being able to tour so ofter and for so long ... Mega bands (stones/Sting/Metallica) they tour once every five to ten years make 10 mil or whatever and live on it till it's time to tour again .... bands just getting started and bands who are on the tail end of their careers like Warrant and Ratt and crap like that DO NOTHING BUT TOUR.

I'm not sure you know what you are talking about on this subject Popps even IF YOUR heart is in the right place.

And I'd love to hear L.A. chime in on this ... and that's the first time I've ever said that .

Did you read my last post ?

I've sang for bands for a long time , I understand where you are coming from totally Popps , I just know there is no way to stop it and it's been going on long before the net in some form or another....

The industry is totally different now then 10 years ago. With be able to buy really nice recording equipment now for a few grand that would have been 100 grand in the 80's and record and sell your music on the net without needing a major label to do your craft ... now the money is in the show not the music.

As when you do sign with a major label the money you get from album sales is crap anyway. The money as far as for the band has really always been in the tour and merchandise.


I understand you Popps that it is still dirty to pirate music . But it's just not really that big of deal in the grand scheme.

Great bands with great music and big followings do pretty well regardless of the music theft .


Trust me ... the money is in touring not the music as much as it used to be. I've been around this crap for 20 years.

Not tooting my own horn , because it's not that big a deal but I walked from a band that was about to be signed by sony when I was 19 , copyrighted all the music behind their backs and killed the deal they was working on cause the deal was based on the music which I wrote.... Me and them was fighting and it was the right move at the time. I was already ok financially and wasn't going to be in a possession not to control what I created and get Dave Mustaine'ed .

My best friend is one of the biggest booking agents on the east coast and always trying to get me to start a band.
I have friends in tons of bands a few of them semi famous , I have helped mix and produce my friends bands music for years now in my own studio and and when i do sing/write I just do it more for me then anyone else now that I don't really play in bands ... Music is the only "job" i have ever had really.


But now you make your money as a band different then you used to , Touring , Merchandise at shows , special offers like box sets and crap like that.
hence bands GIVING AWAY their albums ...

Prince gave away his 2007 album Planet Earth ... here is a story on WHY it worked.
http://www.time.com/time/arts/article/0,8599,1644427,00.html


Tom Petty GAVE you a digital copy of his last album if you bought a ticket to his tour ...


It's a different music business now Popps.

Taco John
07-27-2010, 10:49 PM
Here's my second question.

So as I said before: I have about 200+ DVD's that I've ripped to my hard drive so that I can play them on the Xbox media center that I created using an old Xbox and a copy of XBMC. (it took me forever to rip them all to digital, but finally, I'm about 97% there.

So this weekend I have a yard sale. Is it considered stealing if I sell my DVD collection but keep the digital files?

DenverBound
07-28-2010, 02:17 AM
Here's my second question.

So as I said before: I have about 200+ DVD's that I've ripped to my hard drive so that I can play them on the Xbox media center that I created using an old Xbox and a copy of XBMC. (it took me forever to rip them all to digital, but finally, I'm about 97% there.

So this weekend I have a yard sale. Is it considered stealing if I sell my DVD collection but keep the digital files?

Technically yes.

Taco John
07-28-2010, 02:18 AM
Technically yes.

Under what technicality? Is there a law that you're referencing?

That One Guy
07-28-2010, 04:30 AM
Under what technicality? Is there a law that you're referencing?

Haha, that's two of us asking.

Notice I asked Popps and jhns who said we were stealing if they could provide us anything to back up their position and since Popps couldn't turn it into a cheapshot, he avoided my question.

And yes, Popps, this is a callout. Not because I'm sure of my position but because you keep skipping posts that make an argument and attacking single sentences that can further your position.

Put it in black and white. Where do downloaders break the law exactly? You're adamant about the position so can you cite it or point us in the right direction, at least?

chadta
07-28-2010, 05:45 AM
In Canada, downloading copyright music from peer-to-peer networks is legal, but uploading those files is not. Canada has a private copying levy, which grants the right to make personal, noncommercial copies of sound recordings. Canada has imposed levies (fees) on recording mediums like blank CDs and similar items. These levies are used to fund musicians and songwriters for revenues lost due to consumer copying.

so Popps can kiss my ass

while the same rules dont apply to you guys in the states, i am infact doing NOTHING wrong when i download music, which is an even better position than i thought i was in, where i was doing wrong but didnt care.

so thanks to taco john, and that one guy for questioning the legality of things, i learned something today.

http://news.cnet.com/2100-1025_3-5121479.html

http://www.webopedia.com/DidYouKnow/Internet/2004/music_downloading.asp?PHPSESSID=f0057669b77f8fe01d 7453c8650c3361

chadta
07-28-2010, 05:58 AM
Under what technicality? Is there a law that you're referencing?


http://www.riaa.com/physicalpiracy.php?content_selector=piracy_online_ the_law


http://w2.eff.org/IP/eff_fair_use_faq.php

RhymesayersDU
07-28-2010, 07:11 AM
Right, well look at it this way Isaac.

Im not buying Lady Gaga. Im not letting my wife spend money on Lady Gaga. So either way they aren't getting my money. I will download lady gaga for my wife if she requests it however. So who is getting screwed? No one loses my way, but I do win.

Either way the RIAA, the people in the middle and Lady Gaga are not getting my hard earned money for their crap. Whether I get to listen to it or not is irrelevant.

And what is so different about downloading music from teh interwebz and recording it off the radio which is arguably easier to do? Nothing, nothing at all and yet no one complained when people did that did they? No they did not.

You can't honestly believe any of this.

Like I've said before... I download 99% of my music and movies. I'm not a saint. But I don't have any delusions about it.

That was quite a rationalization there. A ridiculous one at that.

1) Whether it's the RIAA, the record label, or the artist, somebody spent money to produce that music. It's a product like anything else. Somebody is losing, and you can't really say otherwise.

2) And are you serious with the radio thing? I didn't know they played entire albums on the radio. On a single-by-single basis you might have a point, but nobody plays entire records which you can record on the radio. You're not going to hear Lady Gaga's new CD from start to finish on any radio station. Furthermore, even if they did the quality would be crap. And edited for that matter. Downloading a high-quality rip from a website is not the same as sitting by your radio and hitting record when your favorite song comes on.

Just admit you're taking a product you should be paying for. It isn't a victimless crime. Do many of us, myself included, do it? Absolutely. But don't spin it as you being the right one here. None of us who download are. It's just something we do which is hard (if not impossible) to stop.

That One Guy
07-28-2010, 07:33 AM
http://www.riaa.com/physicalpiracy.php?content_selector=piracy_online_ the_law


http://w2.eff.org/IP/eff_fair_use_faq.php

Thanks for the info.

The RIAA as an obviously biased source really seemed to generalize. It defined downloading as a crime but used examples such as the case against Napster to identify it as such. The case against Napster was obviously an issue of going after the uploader rather than the millions of users who were downloading. We're basically left where we were at before but it cleared the smoke - you're pretty much safe as long as you aren't offering. They clearly state downloading is a crime but since all their cases cited were of uploading, we're left realizing where the actual inherent danger lies.

Congrats on being able to download and tell Popps to suck it :yayaya:

Drek
07-28-2010, 07:34 AM
Under what technicality? Is there a law that you're referencing?

Digital Millennium Copyright Act (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_Millennium_Copyright_Act)

You circumvented the inherent DVD protection (physical media) and then distributed.



So, you're stealing stuff... but you feel bad because you're not giving other people enough stolen stuff?




At least you've got a good conscience.

Popps, would you mind defining what exactly an individual is purchasing when they buy a CD, DVD, or Blu-Ray?

What exactly are they purchasing when they buy a song or album off iTunes or Amazon?

That One Guy
07-28-2010, 07:42 AM
In Canada, downloading copyright music from peer-to-peer networks is legal, but uploading those files is not. Canada has a private copying levy, which grants the right to make personal, noncommercial copies of sound recordings. Canada has imposed levies (fees) on recording mediums like blank CDs and similar items. These levies are used to fund musicians and songwriters for revenues lost due to consumer copying.

so Popps can kiss my ass

while the same rules dont apply to you guys in the states, i am infact doing NOTHING wrong when i download music, which is an even better position than i thought i was in, where i was doing wrong but didnt care.

so thanks to taco john, and that one guy for questioning the legality of things, i learned something today.

http://news.cnet.com/2100-1025_3-5121479.html

http://www.webopedia.com/DidYouKnow/Internet/2004/music_downloading.asp?PHPSESSID=f0057669b77f8fe01d 7453c8650c3361

This line cracked me up:

"Our position is that under Canadian law, downloading is also prohibited," said Richard Pfohl, general counsel for the Canadian Recording Industry Association. "This is the opinion of the Copyright Board, but Canadian courts will decide this issue."

It shows where a big part of the problem lies. A government body ruled in that case that downloading was legal but the recording industry continues to spread the lies that it's illegal. Who are they to decide what's legal and illegal? Obviously the government body would've ruled otherwise if law stated otherwise. Disinformation campaigns should be as illegal as false advertising. Spreading the word that it's illegal when the government says something is protected is an infringement of rights. That should be punishable.

Drek
07-28-2010, 07:42 AM
1) Whether it's the RIAA, the record label, or the artist, somebody spent money to produce that music. It's a product like anything else. Somebody is losing, and you can't really say otherwise.
In theory they're losing, but the RIAA will take a download number and say that every single download was a lost sale. This is as disingenuous as saying that none of those downloads would've been a purchase. If you can't quantify the loss it can't really be termed as theft by the strictest sense of the word. Corporate sabotage maybe, but not theft.

2) And are you serious with the radio thing? I didn't know they played entire albums on the radio. On a single-by-single basis you might have a point, but nobody plays entire records which you can record on the radio. You're not going to hear Lady Gaga's new CD from start to finish on any radio station. Furthermore, even if they did the quality would be crap. And edited for that matter. Downloading a high-quality rip from a website is not the same as sitting by your radio and hitting record when your favorite song comes on.
I have Sirius XM, every big album release they play from start to finish, and on their request shows you can get any song off an album played.

Its also broadcast in a CD quality digital format, so I could easily just plug the system into my computer and let it record every last song played all day. Probably millions of songs in a single week. But that is completely fine because its on par with taping right?

Just admit you're taking a product you should be paying for. It isn't a victimless crime. Do many of us, myself included, do it? Absolutely. But don't spin it as you being the right one here. None of us who download are. It's just something we do which is hard (if not impossible) to stop.
I'd argue that I'm enjoying a product I'm subsidizing through alternative means. It is not my problem the RIAA, MPAA, etc. are too narrow minded in scope of payment.

That One Guy
07-28-2010, 07:55 AM
Digital Millennium Copyright Act (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_Millennium_Copyright_Act)

You circumvented the inherent DVD protection (physical media) and then distributed.








But at the time of the copying, didn't the fair use act supercede the bypassing of the DRM? I can't imagine the production people could so easily circumvent the fair use act by sticking DRM on there. Fair use has to supercede.

The issue would then be whether a legally owned copy under fair use is still legally owned once the movie is sold. That pertains to your other question to Popps. If all you're buying is the rights to the movie then downloading becomes legal again as you own the rights to said movie but it's often easier to download than to rip. Also, if DRM protection under the DMCA prevents ripping, this is the only way to have a backup under the fair use act. If all you're buying is the physical disk and it contains a movie on it then the copies are legal, in my opinion.

If you're buying rights to a movie though, there should be some mechanism for having that movie replaced very cheaply in the event that the movie is destroyed. Anyone who ever bought two copies of the same disk has been ripped off, if that's the case.

That One Guy
07-28-2010, 07:58 AM
In theory they're losing, but the RIAA will take a download number and say that every single download was a lost sale. This is as disingenuous as saying that none of those downloads would've been a purchase. If you can't quantify the loss it can't really be termed as theft by the strictest sense of the word. Corporate sabotage maybe, but not theft.


I have Sirius XM, every big album release they play from start to finish, and on their request shows you can get any song off an album played.

Its also broadcast in a CD quality digital format, so I could easily just plug the system into my computer and let it record every last song played all day. Probably millions of songs in a single week. But that is completely fine because its on par with taping right?


I'd argue that I'm enjoying a product I'm subsidizing through alternative means. It is not my problem the RIAA, MPAA, etc. are too narrow minded in scope of payment.

Another great point. Time shifting is considered legal under fair use act so you can record something to enjoy later. What if you only record a song from start to finish? Do you have to include the commercials for that? Does it only apply to television?

Just based off the few articles and explanations I read this morning, I would almost say that recording from the radio is absolutely legal. I hadn't thought about that.

broncosteven
07-28-2010, 11:00 AM
Right, well look at it this way Isaac.

Im not buying Lady Gaga. Im not letting my wife spend money on Lady Gaga. So either way they aren't getting my money. I will download lady gaga for my wife if she requests it however. So who is getting screwed? No one loses my way, but I do win.

Either way the RIAA, the people in the middle and Lady Gaga are not getting my hard earned money for their crap. Whether I get to listen to it or not is irrelevant.

And what is so different about downloading music from teh interwebz and recording it off the radio which is arguably easier to do? Nothing, nothing at all and yet no one complained when people did that did they? No they did not.

Check out David Gerrold's articles on MaximumPC.com. We have already covered these issues and he wrote them out clearer.


http://www.maximumpc.com/article/columns/future_tense_piracy_revisited

David Gerrold Futuretense Piracy Revisited:

I said that the RIAA and the MPAA had forgotten what business they’re in. They think they’re in the business of selling discs. They’ve forgotten that they’re in the business of delivering entertainment.

In the comment section that followed the piece, a poster identified as Mark17 asked: “Why should I pay for music, movies, or software when I can get them for free?”

I’m going to answer that question, Mark17. But I don’t think you’re going to like the answer.

First, send me your address.

I’m going to walk into your house/condo/apartment/trailer uninvited. I’m going to go to your fridge. I’m going to take out the steak you were saving for Sunday barbecue and grill it for myself. I’m going to help myself to a couple of bottles of beer and the chocolate ice cream in the freezer too. On my way out, I’ll take a few books from your shelves, maybe some DVDs I’d like to watch, and I’ll take your MP3 player too. Maybe I’ll pick up your car keys and drive off in your 72 Pinto, if I’m feeling suicidal.

And no, you can’t complain. Why should I pay for your property when I can take it for free?

What’s that you say, Mr. Mark17? That I’m stealing from you? That’s funny you should say that.

When you download Star Trek, Season II, Episode 42, you’re stealing from me. When you download the John Cusack film, Martian Child, you’re stealing from me. When you use uTorrent to download the David Gerrold Folder via isohunt or Pirate Bay, you’re stealing from me.

See, I’m entitled to residuals from scripts I’ve written or stories I’ve sold to movies and television. I’m entitled to royalties on the books I’ve written. When you download that stuff — “for free” as you put it — you’re stealing from me. You’re taking the money out of my wallet. You’re taking a piece of my income. You’re taking the food out of my fridge.

The person who uploaded it did so without permission. When you download it, you’re receiving stolen property.
It isn’t “free.” It’s stealing.

Most of the people who answered you in the subsequent comments understood that. Hell, even my son learned that lesson by the time he was nine—and he had an impulse-control problem.

I’ve been involved in this discussion about how computers will affect copyrights for more than thirty years—ever since the earliest days of usenet. I’ve heard all the justifications for file-sharing other people’s copyrighted material, including my twp favorites: “You should be grateful! I’m helping you get better known!” and “Well, all you guys are rich!” (Hello? Are you Robin Hood now?)

My point, two weeks ago, wasn’t that stealing was justifiable. It was that the producers of books and music, TV and movies, are wasting too much money chasing after file-sharers. It would be a far better investment of their time and energy to create online distribution channels much more attractive than illegal file-downloading. The Kindle and the Nook and the iPad are all good examples. So are Zune and iTunes and Netflix. I don’t have to worry about downloading malware and I’m guaranteed to get a high quality download.

Okay, now that I’ve made that point, there is one point I want to revisit. I touched on it a couple months ago, but it’s worth a second look.

Back in the late seventies and early eighties, the most popular word processing program was a thing called WordStar. It ran on CP/M. Later, it was ported to DOS. The first version ran in less than 64K of RAM (including operating system), but it allowed you to work on documents much larger than 64K because it was designed like a Tardis. It was larger on the inside than it was on the outside. Once you learned it’s control-key combinations, you could move through a file like chili through a baby.

Throughout its life, WordStar was also the most pirated program of any kind. (Except maybe DOS itself.) There was no copy protection in those days, no serial numbers. So you could copy a program onto a floppy, copy it onto another machine, and go to work. I think, and I’m not the only one who thinks this, that the widespread copying of WordStar also contributed to its success—it made it a standard. Everyone knew how to use it and most documents being passed around were in WordStar format, so you needed WordStar to access them.

Every time WordStar came out with a valuable upgrade, I think a lot of those people with copies they’d borrowed or been given or helped themselves to, found it was easier to pay for an upgrade than look for another copy. I think that as a lot of students moved into jobs, they had their employers buy them copies. I think that there was a significant relationship between WordStar’s profitability and the number of free copies floating around.

It’s worth noting that today, Photoshop is one of the most pirated pieces of software in the world—if not the most. It’s also one of the best-selling. Is there a connection? I think so. Photoshop is the standard. Nobody else can get real traction against Adobe’s star product. Does that mean Adobe should condone illegal downloading? Hell, no. But there are more hackers and crackers and downloaders out there than there are geniuses at Adobe. I think it’s in Adobe’s best interests to focus on making their products better and not inconveniencing the customers who pay the bills.

Just like WordStar, every eighteen months, Adobe issues a significant next-generation upgrade. And I suspect that every eighteen months, as a lot of dabblers become serious users, they’re going to want a legal copy, with all the extras and benefits that come with it.

This is why Adobe, and a lot of other companies too, make trial versions of their software available online. It’s to give you an experience of the program, enough to encourage you to want to become a paying customer. I just wish it were a three month window instead of 30-days. 30-days isn’t enough time for me to get hooked. Three months is enough time to develop a serious addiction.

But it’s a different issue with books and movies.

Most books are read-once. Most movies are view-once. Most television shows too. So once you’ve read the book or viewed the download, you’re pretty much done. There’s not a lot of incentive to go out and pay for a copy. The author is out of luck.
Now, I suppose that if you were to download and read two or three David Gerrold novels from the internet, it might inspire you to go to a bookstore and see if there are any more — but it might equally inspire you to go back to the internet and look for the next books in the series too. And as much as I appreciate the public library effect of the internet—at least the public library pays for their copies.

I get emails, several every day, asking me for another Star Wolf novel, another book in the Dingilliad, and please please please will you finish A Method For Madness? My big fear is that after I’ve spent six months or two years or seventeen years working on a book that’s so important to me that it’s worth that personal investment of time—that before I and my publishers can make any money off it—you and all the other little Mark17s in the world will have downloaded it “for free” as you put it, destroying any chance I might have of putting a little more cash into my retirement account.

So, here’s the deal, Mark17 — the next time you think you’re getting something for free, you might want to stop and remember that there are real human beings behind the music and books and movies you’re downloading. It’s not “free.” It never was.

That’s just the excuse you make to yourself to avoid having to deal with the hole you just carved into your own integrity. But you and I both know, you’re still a thief.

More info here:
http://www.maximumpc.com/article/columns/future_tense_piracy_revisited

He has some great articles on Spam and an earlier article about piracy also.

Popps
07-28-2010, 11:11 AM
It's a different music business now Popps.

You're kidding, right?

I've been immersed in the music and entertainment industry my whole life. I'm in network TV now, but it's the same animal, different name.

Definitely don't need a primer on the industry, bro. Again, it almost seems like you're regressing with these posts. You're usually much more on top of things.

As for me "knowing what I'm talking about," we can play the "resume game" if you want to start laying out credentials. There literally isn't a side of this business I haven't worked on.


Or, we could just stick to the topic and now throw around baseless insults?

You choose.

Popps
07-28-2010, 11:13 AM
Another great point. Time shifting is considered legal under fair use act so you can record something to enjoy later. What if you only record a song from start to finish? Do you have to include the commercials for that? Does it only apply to television? .

No one has ever cared if you recorded a song from the radio for personal use.


Again, that's vasty different than mass digital piracy.

Drek
07-28-2010, 11:26 AM
No one has ever cared if you recorded a song from the radio for personal use.


Again, that's vasty different than mass digital piracy.

So if I connect my Sirius XM radio into my PC and digitally record every single song played on each station over the course of several months (millions of songs, including entire albums) no one will ever have a problem with that or view it as "theft"? Can I share it with my friend? Can he share it with his? Where exactly do we draw the line in the sand and say "this is good but just one iteration more and its theft"?

I really would like to know your opinion, as an industry insider (not being sarcastic in any way), what you think a person is buying when they buy media (physical format and digital distro respectively).

Taco John
07-28-2010, 11:39 AM
So if I connect my Sirius XM radio into my PC and digitally record every single song played on each station over the course of several months (millions of songs, including entire albums) no one will ever have a problem with that or view it as "theft"?

No because the music is being liscenced for broadcast, and that liscense isn't cheap. Your subscription to the service helps pay for that liscence.

Drek
07-28-2010, 01:16 PM
No because the music is being liscenced for broadcast, and that liscense isn't cheap. Your subscription to the service helps pay for that liscence.

I know the RIAA wouldn't see it that way, but Popps says no one is bothered by taping off the radio, what I'm suggesting is just the next logical step from that.

However, like you said my subscription pays for my share of the licensed use. So doesn't that by proxy make me a licensee of the music, and therefore entitled to personal use of all the licensed IPs as long as I maintain my license?

Seems like it should. ;D

That One Guy
07-28-2010, 01:20 PM
So if I connect my Sirius XM radio into my PC and digitally record every single song played on each station over the course of several months (millions of songs, including entire albums) no one will ever have a problem with that or view it as "theft"? Can I share it with my friend? Can he share it with his? Where exactly do we draw the line in the sand and say "this is good but just one iteration more and its theft"?

I really would like to know your opinion, as an industry insider (not being sarcastic in any way), what you think a person is buying when they buy media (physical format and digital distro respectively).

Fair use did cite personal use. Once you distribute what you saved, it's distribution and wrong.

However, as I mentioned earlier the possibility to download a movie you own, can you download a song you heard on the radio this morning? You could've just as easily hooked that XM receiver into a computer and had a legal copy (by the standards we've established here). Wasn't that essentially giving you personal rights to any song you heard on there? Do you have to go through the labor of recording it at that point just as you, conceptually, could have to rip a DVD rather than download it?

We're again caught on the concept of what you're buying with a movie, cd, etc. If you can personally own the right to possess a song once you establish ownership once... we're all back to being much more in compliance than we probably thought we were.

And, Popps, you've taken a role in this thread by establishing your credentials and challenging others'. Why wont you respond to the numerous questions being thrown your way rather than just jumping out to attack a single post/poster? Answer some questions, explain where our thinking is going astray.

That One Guy
07-28-2010, 01:22 PM
I know the RIAA wouldn't see it that way, but Popps says no one is bothered by taping off the radio, what I'm suggesting is just the next logical step from that.

However, like you said my subscription pays for my share of the licensed use. So doesn't that by proxy make me a licensee of the music, and therefore entitled to personal use of all the licensed IPs as long as I maintain my license?

Seems like it should. ;D

Looks like you and I came to a similar understanding. Lets see if Popps will chime in.

I'm learning a lot here today. I at least now know what degree of criminal I am.

Drek
07-28-2010, 02:08 PM
Looks like you and I came to a similar understanding. Lets see if Popps will chime in.

I'm learning a lot here today. I at least now know what degree of criminal I am.

See, by the above standards I've never pirated a thing in my life, and I download a ton of torrents. But I also maintain a Sirius XM subscription and a Netflix subscription. So I'm effectively a licensee on any movie Netflix has (i.e. pretty much all of them) or music Sirius XM is a licensee of (i.e. pretty much all music).

So by the letter of "fair use" I can at my discretion download anything I want for music, movies, and TV.

chadta
07-28-2010, 02:19 PM
Looks like you and I came to a similar understanding. Lets see if Popps will chime in.

I'm learning a lot here today. I at least now know what degree of criminal I am.

i learned im not a criminal at all up here in canuckistan thanks to the fees included in the price of blank media. WOOHOOOOO so now i get to play the part of smug a-hole and look down on all you thieves. :rofl:

Popps
07-28-2010, 03:56 PM
So if I connect my Sirius XM radio into my PC and digitally record every single song played on each station over the course of several months (millions of songs, including entire albums) no one will ever have a problem with that or view it as "theft"? Can I share it with my friend? Can he share it with his? Where exactly do we draw the line in the sand and say "this is good but just one iteration more and its theft"?

I really would like to know your opinion, as an industry insider (not being sarcastic in any way), what you think a person is buying when they buy media (physical format and digital distro respectively).

Can't recall off the top of my head but I actually believe there is a "fair use" type law that allows you to make a digital back up and a couple of copies.

Again, I don't think any artists are too upset about people showing friends music, sharing a CD, etc.

It's mass platforms for massive digital delivery that start to cross lines.

Drek
07-28-2010, 04:51 PM
Can't recall off the top of my head but I actually believe there is a "fair use" type law that allows you to make a digital back up and a couple of copies.

Again, I don't think any artists are too upset about people showing friends music, sharing a CD, etc.

It's mass platforms for massive digital delivery that start to cross lines.

But all of this stems from friends sharing with friends. So you need to draw a line somewhere. Where exactly is that line?

Five friends? Ten? Did I commit a felony when I fired up my copy of a movie on the big screen projector in college? A lot of people watched it, I didn't know the names of many there and would consider even fewer friends.

If that kind of sharing on a college campus is legitimate "fair use" then why not from the comfort of our dorms over a closed campus P2P system like DirectConnect?

And if that is ok then why can't I share it with my buddies at the next school over?

See the slippery slope you get into with "fair use" as a caveat to all this? Most torrent sites are not ran for profit. Most seeders are in no way trying to profit off it either. Just sharing content under what you could construe as the natural progression of steps from "fair use".

So what exactly do we buy when we purchase a form of media? The physical material itself? Digital distro would shoot a hole in that definition.

A license for that intellectual property? Well if that is the case then I'd say I'm entitled to a free blu-ray replacement for every DVD I bought, since it is the same IP, in a superior format.

Again, slippery slope. But instead of an industry full of creative artists being creative with a solution they label duplication as "theft" and liken it to stealing a car.

That One Guy
07-28-2010, 05:08 PM
But all of this stems from friends sharing with friends. So you need to draw a line somewhere. Where exactly is that line?

Five friends? Ten? Did I commit a felony when I fired up my copy of a movie on the big screen projector in college? A lot of people watched it, I didn't know the names of many there and would consider even fewer friends.

If that kind of sharing on a college campus is legitimate "fair use" then why not from the comfort of our dorms over a closed campus P2P system like DirectConnect?

And if that is ok then why can't I share it with my buddies at the next school over?

See the slippery slope you get into with "fair use" as a caveat to all this? Most torrent sites are not ran for profit. Most seeders are in no way trying to profit off it either. Just sharing content under what you could construe as the natural progression of steps from "fair use".

So what exactly do we buy when we purchase a form of media? The physical material itself? Digital distro would shoot a hole in that definition.

A license for that intellectual property? Well if that is the case then I'd say I'm entitled to a free blu-ray replacement for every DVD I bought, since it is the same IP, in a superior format.

Again, slippery slope. But instead of an industry full of creative artists being creative with a solution they label duplication as "theft" and liken it to stealing a car.

I understand the logic behind not being able to share with anyone. It eventually comes down to the scale of the infringement and the point at which it becomes worth pursuing.

The 2nd part is what I'm interested in as well though and what Popps has continued to avoid. Maybe his high horse prevents him from hearing all the discussion down here. It'd be awesome and completely undermine Disney though since they release the same movies every 5 years in new packaging and people rebuy them. For that reason alone, the RIAA has avoided getting a definition, I think. The abiguity of the current laws serve the RIAA best as they can use scare tactics on both users and ISPs alike.

chadta
07-28-2010, 05:34 PM
Again, slippery slope. But instead of an industry full of creative artists being creative with a solution they label duplication as "theft" and liken it to stealing a car.

oh stop it now, popps dropped the car argument once he realized what an idiot he sounded like :thanku:

broncosteven
07-28-2010, 05:45 PM
But all of this stems from friends sharing with friends. So you need to draw a line somewhere. Where exactly is that line?

Five friends? Ten? Did I commit a felony when I fired up my copy of a movie on the big screen projector in college? A lot of people watched it, I didn't know the names of many there and would consider even fewer friends.

If that kind of sharing on a college campus is legitimate "fair use" then why not from the comfort of our dorms over a closed campus P2P system like DirectConnect?

And if that is ok then why can't I share it with my buddies at the next school over?

See the slippery slope you get into with "fair use" as a caveat to all this? Most torrent sites are not ran for profit. Most seeders are in no way trying to profit off it either. Just sharing content under what you could construe as the natural progression of steps from "fair use".

So what exactly do we buy when we purchase a form of media? The physical material itself? Digital distro would shoot a hole in that definition.

A license for that intellectual property? Well if that is the case then I'd say I'm entitled to a free blu-ray replacement for every DVD I bought, since it is the same IP, in a superior format.

Again, slippery slope. But instead of an industry full of creative artists being creative with a solution they label duplication as "theft" and liken it to stealing a car.

http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap5.html#506

§ 506. Criminal offenses6
(a) Criminal Infringement. —

(1) In general. — Any person who willfully infringes a copyright shall be punished as provided under section 2319 of title 18, if the infringement was committed —

(A) for purposes of commercial advantage or private financial gain;

(B) by the reproduction or distribution, including by electronic means, during any 180-day period, of 1 or more copies or phonorecords of 1 or more copyrighted works, which have a total retail value of more than $1,000; or

(C) by the distribution of a work being prepared for commercial distribution, by making it available on a computer network accessible to members of the public, if such person knew or should have known that the work was intended for commercial distribution.
(2) Evidence. — For purposes of this subsection, evidence of reproduction or distribution of a copyrighted work, by itself, shall not be sufficient to establish willful infringement of a copyright.

(3) Definition. — In this subsection, the term “work being prepared for commercial distribution” means —

(A) a computer program, a musical work, a motion picture or other audiovisual work, or a sound recording, if, at the time of unauthorized distribution —

(i) the copyright owner has a reasonable expectation of commercial distribution; and

(ii) the copies or phonorecords of the work have not been commercially distributed; or

(B) a motion picture, if, at the time of unauthorized distribution, the motion picture —

(i) has been made available for viewing in a motion picture exhibition facility; and

(ii) has not been made available in copies for sale to the general public in the United States in a format intended to permit viewing outside a motion picture exhibition facility.

(b)(b) Forfeiture, Destruction, and Restitution.—Forfeiture, destruction, and restitution relating to this section shall be subject to section 2323 of title 18, to the extent provided in that section, in addition to any other similar remedies provided by law.

(c) Fraudulent Copyright Notice. — Any person who, with fraudulent intent, places on any article a notice of copyright or words of the same purport that such person knows to be false, or who, with fraudulent intent, publicly distributes or imports for public distribution any article bearing such notice or words that such person knows to be false, shall be fined not more than $2,500.

(d) Fraudulent Removal of Copyright Notice. — Any person who, with fraudulent intent, removes or alters any notice of copyright appearing on a copy of a copyrighted work shall be fined not more than $2,500.

(e) False Representation. — Any person who knowingly makes a false representation of a material fact in the application for copyright registration provided for by section 409, or in any written statement filed in connection with the application, shall be fined not more than $2,500.

(f) Rights of Attribution and Integrity. — Nothing in this section applies to infringement of the rights conferred by section 106A(a).

Popps
07-28-2010, 06:03 PM
oh stop it now, popps dropped the car argument once he realized what an idiot he sounded like :thanku:

Nah. Drek is a smart enough guy to have a conversation.

I dropped talking to you because you've yet to make a coherent point yet, except that you think it's O.K. to steal whatever you want, as long as there's an easy way to do it.

Taco John
07-28-2010, 06:05 PM
I know the RIAA wouldn't see it that way, but Popps says no one is bothered by taping off the radio, what I'm suggesting is just the next logical step from that.

I've never ready anything to suggest that the RIAA wouldn't see it that way. It's virtually the same model as Napster uses, except that Napster makes it much easier.

Popps
07-28-2010, 06:18 PM
But all of this stems from friends sharing with friends. So you need to draw a line somewhere. Where exactly is that line?

Again, slippery slope. But instead of an industry full of creative artists being creative with a solution they label duplication as "theft" and liken it to stealing a car.

I never claimed to have the solution, my initial comments were with regards to the (false) notion that because something is easy to steal... the item doesn't hold value. The reference to cars was simply to say... if there was an easy way to clone cars, people would do it. It would still be illegal. It wouldn't mean that cars were "less valuable."

I also used identity theft as an example. Easy to do... but still a crime. Different kind of crime, but it still involves one person gaining (illegally) at another person's loss.

People don't like to think of stealing music as stealing, because most would rather justify their actions by using pseudo-logic.

Hey, I've downloaded stuff before. I don't make a habit of it, but I've done it. I just don't try to tell people that it's something other than what it is.
I buy my son music on iTuns as opposed to letting him steal it from Limewire. He's a huge music fan... likes a lot of underground music, and I'd rather see those artists get paid for their hard work.

As for where you draw the line, I think it's got to be when mass access or mass duplication/distribution come into play.

Again, this isn't about you buying a CD and duping one for your friend. That kind of thing has been built into the music industry model for a long time.
But, when you have a site like Napster was at one point... there was literally no need for people to buy music, unless they understood the quality difference... which your average listener doesn't.

Like any law or regulation, you look at things on a case by case basis. Some drugs are legal in our country, some are not. Some forms of file sharing should probably be O.K... and some probably shouldn't.

It's really not all that complicated.

chadta
07-28-2010, 06:50 PM
Nah. Drek is a smart enough guy to have a conversation.

I dropped talking to you because you've yet to make a coherent point yet, except that you think it's O.K. to steal whatever you want, as long as there's an easy way to do it.

that fact that you looked like an idiot everytime you wrote something didnt have anything to do with it ? :rofl:

People don't like to think of stealing music as stealing, because most would rather justify their actions by using pseudo-logic.

Its not pseudo logic, its the LAW, courts have ruled, as a canadian, i pay a fee everytime i buy a blank cd, that fee goes to the artists, you are the one stealing, NOT ME :thumbs:

That One Guy
07-28-2010, 06:58 PM
that fact that you looked like an idiot everytime you wrote something didnt have anything to do with it ? :rofl:



Its not pseudo logic, its the LAW, courts have ruled, as a canadian, i pay a fee everytime i buy a blank cd, that fee goes to the artists, you are the one stealing, NOT ME :thumbs:

haha, didn't even make it a day before you pulled out the card. Awesome!

Popps, quit hiding - what do you think we're buying when we buy a CD or DVD? Is it legal to download a movie or CD that you already own or owned but got destroyed?

Come on, you know the industry and standards. Explain things to us.

Popps
07-28-2010, 07:07 PM
Popps, quit hiding -

Hiding?

I've made my point, and you've simply said that you want to steal stuff.

Have at it. Why do you need my blessing?


You just go ahead and continue kissing Dez Bryant's ass and telling us how awful and cruel it was for him to be asked to carry pads.

That One Guy
07-28-2010, 07:26 PM
Hiding?

I've made my point, and you've simply said that you want to steal stuff.

Have at it. Why do you need my blessing?


You just go ahead and continue kissing Dez Bryant's ass and telling us how awful and cruel it was for him to be asked to carry pads.

Dodge and deflect, Popps.

The thread evolved loads since the beginning. When the tide turned against you, you disappeared. Answer the simple questions. You could've done that in this same post but chose instead to attack me. Interesting and indicative of your situation, I presume.

Homer Simpson
07-28-2010, 09:49 PM
Blah blah blah. I have had the GENIUS Arcade Fire album for a few days now and thank you leaks and illegal torrents for it. I will purchase it when it comes out. I wasted so much money on horribly poor albums when I was a teen (17 or so dollars) based on a good single or two. If I download something I really like I go to the concert (paying $20 - $90 a ticket) and purchase a hard copy of the album. I am never paying for mediocrity again.

Popps
07-28-2010, 11:47 PM
Blah blah blah. I have had the GENIUS Arcade Fire album for a few days now and thank you leaks and illegal torrents for it. I will purchase it when it comes out. I wasted so much money on horribly poor albums when I was a teen (17 or so dollars) based on a good single or two. If I download something I really like I go to the concert (paying $20 - $90 a ticket) and purchase a hard copy of the album. I am never paying for mediocrity again.


Music can be sampled now days, easily. So, there's really never any mystery when purchasing CDs, etc.

Again, I'm not judging anyone who decides to steal music... but I've bought cars, seen movies, gone to doctors, bought cereal and a host of other items that were subpar in my life-time. That doesn't legitimize me stealing any of those products or services in the future.

Again, there's no need for a charade, here. It's just stealing music. Have at it. Like I said, people break the speed limit every day. Laws of all types are broken endlessly.

But, there's no need to try to qualify this particular type of stealing as something it's not.

I'm not saying it makes anyone a bad person. I just think it's important to recognize it for what it is.

Popps
07-28-2010, 11:48 PM
Dodge and deflect, Popps.

The thread evolved loads since the beginning. When the tide turned against you, you disappeared. Answer the simple questions. You could've done that in this same post but chose instead to attack me. Interesting and indicative of your situation, I presume.

People like Drek and Broncosteven have made concise, legitimate points in this debate. You haven't.

So, at a certain point, people just stop reading your posts.

Sorry.

That One Guy
07-29-2010, 01:30 AM
People like Drek and Broncosteven have made concise, legitimate points in this debate. You haven't.

So, at a certain point, people just stop reading your posts.

Sorry.

Haha, obviously you're reading my posts to respond with such a message. Nice try. Now try answering my question.

The reality is to have such a question as "What am I buying with this DVD?" answered would hurt the producers horribly. Any answer would entitle some variant of legal downloading. I think you know all the holes exist in the RIAA & company's arguments and don't want to face the facts. All those producers are hanging on by a thread as long as they can continue trying to scare people. If someone actually sat down and defined the Fair Use, intellectual property "rights", etc then the industry would change overnight and there'd still be loopholes. Those same loopholes currently exist and prevent a downloader from being worthy of pursuing.

You've been reading my posts, you have no response to my post that wont leave your argument damaged, and now you refuse to answer my posts. You want us to call stealing a CD stealing and admit what we're doing but I think you are doing exactly what the production industry has done to bring us where we are. Try to identify everything as a crime, generalize to the point that under the vague concepts everything is a crime, then hide behind those vague concepts and plug your ears while counter-arguments are made.

I don't expect you to respond to anything as you've already claimed you don't read my posts but I know you're hiding scared as you really have no argument in this. It's too bad you got too worried about not being proven wrong than to pursue a good discussion but you didn't get the nickname "Poops" by being a good contributor to these message boards and spreading cheer with your posts.

Killericon
07-29-2010, 02:01 AM
I download music illegally, and I'm not a criminal, no more than I'm a criminal for going 66 in a 60 zone. A law is only as good as those enforcing it, and in a democratic society, something that a majority of the populace(and I'd say a majority of people get music illegally in some way) is doing can't be illegal. Anyways, just my 2 cents.

chadta
07-29-2010, 05:08 AM
People like Drek and Broncosteven have made concise, legitimate points in this debate. You haven't.

as opposed to your stupid car analogy that you seem to have dropped :notworthy


You could've done that in this same post but chose instead to attack me.

he attacked me too, but hey when ya got nothing else its not surprising


i think i asked it in the other thread but ill try here and see if i get an answer, What about borrowing a book from your neighbour ? or is it only bad and damaging when its in the industry that you work for ?

Drek
07-29-2010, 07:30 AM
I've never ready anything to suggest that the RIAA wouldn't see it that way. It's virtually the same model as Napster uses, except that Napster makes it much easier.
Thats what I'm saying. The RIAA would b**** about taping off the radio if there was any way they could track offenders.

Now from a common sense approach that doesn't seem like a big infraction, but the RIAA is far from a common sense entity.

I never claimed to have the solution,
I know, but that is what this kind of topic should be focused on, not the two polar opposites of what the actual act constitutes.

my initial comments were with regards to the (false) notion that because something is easy to steal... the item doesn't hold value. The reference to cars was simply to say... if there was an easy way to clone cars, people would do it. It would still be illegal. It wouldn't mean that cars were "less valuable." I completely agree that it holds value, but at the same time strongly disagree that it is theft.

In general a product pirated over the internet is not being distributed for profit and the IP is not being infringed on from a creative standpoint (altering content to subvert meaning). No physical property is actually being stolen, and no ownership is being contested. A duplicate copy is being freely shared between one group of individuals to another.

Is there monetary loss on the part of the original creators? Definitely. But they can't quantify the loss without using abstract and inaccurate notions like "1 million people downloaded this so we lost 1 million sales".

P2P media sharing is not theft in the strictest sense. It has been labeled as such because the industry finds that to be a nice gotcha comparison to push an agenda. In reality from a legal standpoint it has much more in common with corporate sabotage and defamation. Cases where the full extent of the damage are viewed in the abstract, as opposed to theft where damages are generally hard values.

I also used identity theft as an example. Easy to do... but still a crime. Different kind of crime, but it still involves one person gaining (illegally) at another person's loss.And identity theft results in a direct proven loss of value. Either X amount of money is stolen or Y amount of debt is racked up. It has a dollar sign attached and is therefore easily defined and prosecuted as theft.

People don't like to think of stealing music as stealing, because most would rather justify their actions by using pseudo-logic.Or because theft is a bad definition for an act that doesn't involve any definitive financial loss.

Again, 1 million people download something. The creator claims 1 million people stole his royalties/fees. All 1 million people claim they wouldn't have downloaded it if it wasn't free. So what is the reality here? Would all of them have still bought it? Would none of them? Likely it would land somewhere in the middle, but where exactly we don't know.

And the RIAA, MPAA, etc. know this. They are disingenuous and enforce it in a disingenuous fashion, typically suing for far more than the real value of the product infringed upon. That makes no sense in a theft case where the defendant is at most subject to damages equal to what was stolen plus legal fees.

As for where you draw the line, I think it's got to be when mass access or mass duplication/distribution come into play. Thats just it, you think that should be the line. But the corporate watch dogs thing the line should be a good ways closer to "no copying at all" and the opposite end of the spectrum thinks that as long as you aren't turning a profit then you should be free to share at your leisure. Its all opinions on where to draw that line.


Like any law or regulation, you look at things on a case by case basis. Some drugs are legal in our country, some are not. Some forms of file sharing should probably be O.K... and some probably shouldn't. But who decides? The industry that has typically been overtly hostile to digital distro customers?

It's really not all that complicated.Oh, but it is. We haven't even gotten into legitimate concerns about regional discrepancies in distribution yet. Or Over the air broadcast materials and the legitimate argument that doing so is implicit consent to public domain use of the product. All kinds of different facets that have yet to be touched on.

A real quick and dirty as to what I personally think (as opposed to the continued devil's advocate stance I've taken so far):

Generally media piracy is something akin to, but not actually, theft. It is damaging to a brand or IP and it reduces sales in much the same way defamation/slander would. To me it should be tried under a similar framework, with several distinct tiers of prosecution from the lowest (unknowingly damaging a brand for no personal gain) up to the highest (knowingly damaging a brand with personal gain) and everything in between.

A few examples:
A college kid downloads a few hundred songs off the campus network and shares them back up on the network to a few dozen other students over the next few days before deleting over half of them (didn't like them) and dumping the rest to his iPod.

This should be a civil offense with very soft penalties. A maximum fine of $1 a song (or less) and a notification process that includes a detailed description of when and how they offended, coupled with a legal fee free manner to settle should be required on the part of the offended party. Again, this never leaves civil courts, and not even a misdemeanor is attached to the person's record.

A bit further up the ladder you have another person who is a frequent seeder on a large torrent site and hosts files for months to years at a time through a high bandwidth pipeline, but entirely not for profit. This person should be subject to legitimate criminal prosecution because it is a willful and large scale operation, but it is not in any way meant to defraud the creator or company responsible for the infringed IPs. This person should be subject to misdemeanor prosecution and a small federal fine, coupled with civil prosecution that can not push for more than a reasonable share of "lost sales". A ratio of real sales v. theoretical lost sales would be the best method here, ideally something that scales with how popular the retail release was versus the frequency of sharing (in other words, the more you share a highly popular product the more likely you where to have deprived the creator of legitimate sales).

At the very top of the ladder we'd have the respective scene groups who actually break the copy protections and distribute it throughout P2P networks, as well as people running large for profit P2P systems.

Popps
07-29-2010, 10:32 AM
T
But who decides? The industry that has typically been overtly hostile to digital distro customers?.

Short on time, but I will say... you make some good points, and particularly this one.

As much as I want to defend the rights of artists, the industry really screwed themselves by dragging their feet to get involved in the digital content delivery world.

I actually held stock in a tiny company back in the late 90's called eMusic. They had the iTunes idea before there was an iTunes. They didn't end up getting enough label participation to thrive, but it was the right concept.

But, the record companies just chose to put their efforts into stopping digital delivery instead of finding a way to make it easy and legal for people.
I truly believe that those few years of ****ing around really cost the industry and artists as a whole.

iTunes is wildly popular, but it's taken a while... and people are still out there stealing music, despite it being SO cheap and easy to purchase, now. The record companies have themselves to blame for a lot of that, imo.