Do you have adblock enabled?
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Fox News)   RIAA forcing university students to pay $3000 each to avoid lawsuits. Suck it, largest demographic of music-buying public   (myfoxkc.com) divider line 371
    More: Asinine  
•       •       •

13944 clicks; posted to Main » on 09 Mar 2007 at 5:36 PM (8 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



371 Comments   (+0 »)
   

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | » | Last | Show all
 
2007-03-09 06:39:31 PM  
Anyone here used to pirate video games in the late 90s?

You had to join some farking MIRC group, beg to get file by file .zips and then painstakingly put together a WAREZ game with barely any sound. no ingame videos and basicly a poor excuse for a game?

NOW, just with torrents you can donwload CD clones with everything in a matter of hours and watch movies that are not even in theaters yet.

Who is really winning the fight?
 
2007-03-09 06:40:24 PM  
untrustworthy: Well, that's the choice for now. But you can also buy mp3s online for less.

There are legal online services where I'm sure you could find some outdated music.


Yes, with restrictions attached to them. I don't upload my collection to the entire world. I don't want to have to continually PROVE I own the damn songs that I purchased.

What's your thoughts on sites like allofmp3.com and musicmp3.ru ?
 
2007-03-09 06:40:29 PM  
shipofthesun: Fine. When the Graphic Artists of America start suing people for hundreds of thousands of dollars for copying pictures and reposting them on the web, then we can talk about other areas. Until then, let's just concentrate on the slimeballs at hand.

I don't think too many designers are going to have a problem with you distributing copies of their works just to look at. But if you lift the works in order to promote your own product or use it in some way which is damaging to them, then you can expect a hefty lawsuit.

But like I said, when you address the copyright laws because of a perceived abuse from an organization like the RIAA, the resulting implications can effect much more than just the recording industry.
 
2007-03-09 06:40:39 PM  
As the original founder of Boycott-RIAA (later sold and left) to this day I haven't purchased, or downloaded for that matter , music from any major label. Actions like the RIAA is doing now, caused me to make the decision to stay away from major label music entirely.

I discovered there is a wealth, far beyond what the RIAA membership offers, called independent music. Since 2000 when I started the website, I've purchased more than 300 CDs ALL INDIE. Better music, often cheaper, and I'm supporting the artists.
 
2007-03-09 06:41:19 PM  
Meh, according to the Laws of my country downloading media is neither stealing nor copyright infringement or anything else. Of course uploading makes you a distributor and that is illegal.

/Has friends in the recording industry
//They all download
///They also know how the system works
////artists get screwed by the RIAA
 
2007-03-09 06:41:49 PM  
If the 50 get together maybe it's cheaper to hire a couple of hitmans to solve the problem.
 
2007-03-09 06:41:59 PM  
heavy metal
Watch the Grammy Awards or listen to top 40 radio. How many of the award winners or bands you hear on comercial radio do you find kick ass?

Your buddies at RIAA and record labels are more responsible for that than music downloaders. Get real.

If you are paying $18 for a new CD you are buying at the wrong place. At Best Buy they sell CD's at cost (to get you in the door) which is around $13 and a lot of the new releases are sold on special at $9.99. Then for older CDs there are used CDs which are as good as new ones since digital recordings don't degrade which are around $4.99.

Huh?

Like I said, rationalize it all you want but it is still stealing/

I haven't rationalized anything. Nor did I ever even say that I download music. I merely asked for empirical evidence of your overblown claim that downloading is driving musicians "out of business", so to speak. Evidence that you haven't yet provided.

And again, for the record people, copyright infringement is not theft, it's copyright infringement.
 
2007-03-09 06:42:57 PM  
you fags still using p2p ..when will you learn your crappy ways suck...newsgroups whos servers destroy incoming/outgoing info on the fly are the only way to get your shizzly shizz! so i pay for a premium server...my d/ls are ALWAYS safe for d/l...no virus crap cuz its been tested before you get it. and no homo riaa fags knocking at my door ...

"Newsgroups ...the 1# choice for pedo porn downloaders since 00' "
 
2007-03-09 06:43:03 PM  
untrustworthyTrue. I'm sure the digital revolution has done a lot to help promote more obscur bands. And that's great. But that doesn't mean that if they want to defend their copyrights that you should be shocked or feel preyed upon. It's their right.

Oh, definitely. Under our current system, it is illegal but the law is easy to avoid. I don't share nor do I download any massive volume that they would concern themselves with (or find any record of me doing).

However, I think feeling preyed upon would be a valid response by many of the people targeted by the *AA. The tools they use to collect info on who's been downloading is spotty at best. This leads to the well-known cases where they never shared music but their IP turned up on an RIAA list. When facing the prospect of a long, drawn-out civil battle or paying $3000 (is it per song? they were once threatening that) I can see how they would feel backed into a wall and preyed upon. Even if they did download the music this is very much an overreaction.
 
2007-03-09 06:43:04 PM  
Here is probably the best new band I have heard in a long time. Every song on their CD rocks, not a note wasted. You can order their CD directly from the band also on their web site. That is where I bought mine.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gXB1x1j5odc
 
2007-03-09 06:45:59 PM  
I'll start buying music online when my music I listen to is available online. As of now, I cannot find any of the music I've downloaded anywhere. When online stores like iTunes get my music, I'll use them.

/Has some free iTunes downloads for about a year now
//Can't find anything I want to download
 
2007-03-09 06:46:29 PM  
shipofthesun: What do you mean, older? The system of, "no money for you, more money for our hookers and blow" is still in place. I fyou are a musician, and you sign with a major, expect to get screwed. Period.

Yes, it is still in place. But it won't be the only way for much longer. The digital age is allowing artists to distribute their own works more easily and with less expense. That means less of a need for the RIAA.

AndrewGK: What's your thoughts on sites like allofmp3.com and musicmp3.ru ?

I don't know much about them, honestly.
 
2007-03-09 06:46:38 PM  
i for one don't mind taking actions that are injurious to a monopoly.

/suck it, dinosaurs
//go see live music if you want to support an artist
 
2007-03-09 06:47:44 PM  
I mean srsly, what does RIAA wanna do about it? Arrest the whole farking world?

Who still pays these assholes anyway? Recording artists hate them, we hate them, time for quits me thinks.

fark RIAA, fark em in the ear.
 
2007-03-09 06:48:13 PM  
The biggest advantage that the record industry has had, traditionally, is control of distribution channels.

They've lost that. If they're halfway intelligent, they know that and are trying to plug the holes while they figure out something else.

If they're not smart, they're screwed.

Somehow, I think they're smart. They're trying to slow the spread of the fire until they figure out how to use it to their advantage.

entropic_existence: ////artists get screwed by the RIAA

As far as I'm concerned, the only thing that you need to know about the recording industry is the concept of "recoupable against royalties."

Ho-lee crap.

If it costs $100K to make an album, and the artist gets 10% royalties, then for them to see a single penny above their advance, they have to top $1M in profit first.

So, at that point, the record co. has made $900K, the band got to make the album. All the people involved in the process got paid as well (and more than the band).

And remember, we're talking profits. There's plenty of ways to cook that to shrink the number.

It's the greatest scam ever. I can't think of why it works, except for the fact that young kids are stupid and bad at math.
 
2007-03-09 06:49:25 PM  
Cruzader: Oh, definitely. Under our current system, it is illegal but the law is easy to avoid. I don't share nor do I download any massive volume that they would concern themselves with (or find any record of me doing).

Good.

However, I think feeling preyed upon would be a valid response by many of the people targeted by the *AA. The tools they use to collect info on who's been downloading is spotty at best. This leads to the well-known cases where they never shared music but their IP turned up on an RIAA list. When facing the prospect of a long, drawn-out civil battle or paying $3000 (is it per song? they were once threatening that) I can see how they would feel backed into a wall and preyed upon. Even if they did download the music this is very much an overreaction.

Yeah, the system for enforcement is certainly not flawless. People should be innocent until proven guilty. And if you can't do that, then they need to just walk away from it and not bully people into paying when there is no legal justification for it.
 
2007-03-09 06:49:34 PM  
What's your thoughts on sites like allofmp3.com and musicmp3.ru ?

Allofmp3 is most definitely illegal here in the US. That is, illegal for people in the US to use. I don't know about the other website.

If it works the same way as allofmp3 (as in they do not have any licenses to distribute their songs) then it is illegal too.
 
2007-03-09 06:50:07 PM  
untrustworthy: But if you lift the works in order to promote your own product or use it in some way which is damaging to them, then you can expect a hefty lawsuit.

And we come to the point. Who is profiting from this?!! The students? This is covered under fair use. Copying music is not illegal. Selling copied music is. To sue to stop these people from profiting on the songs is prior restraint. If you can prove they profited, then great. If not, STFU. and damaging? I'd like to see the n dimensional math that they would have to come up with to prove that. The music biz is as profitable as ever.

Last fiscal year, EMI - one of the Big Four album distributors that control nearly 95 percent of music distribution - recorded a net profit of $169 million. This fiscal year, another "Big Four" member, the Universal Music Group, is expected to bring in record profits from its deal with Microsoft.
 
2007-03-09 06:51:17 PM  
untrustworthy: Creatives typically do rely on creating new works. But why should others be allowed to exploit their creations when they didn't do anything to support them or contribute to the creations?

Because ideas belong to us all. They are not 'property', despite the moniker of 'IP.'

You're obviously a smart dude, and willing to take on many arguments at once (bonus points for that! ;) ) I'm sure you're well aware, copyrights are an agreement between the creator and "the people" that only the creator will have the right to use an idea for a limited period of time. After that time the idea passes into the public domain (passes to "the people",) where they truly exist anyway.


Cleveland-Steamer, I understand why copyright exists, but do you understand why it runs out? The reason we have limited time copyrights, as opposed to perpetual copyright, is that a time frame of limited use is exactly what makes people continue to innovate because they can't rely on the same ideas forever.

Yes, the reason we have them at all is to encourage people to innovate at all. That's understandable. Many people wouldn't create if not for the chance to reap rewards.

But if you can always make money off of an idea created decades ago, then why make new ideas?
 
2007-03-09 06:52:29 PM  
Frank N Stein Everyone worries about their own freedom, but what about the RIAA? They have the freedom to make profits. They have the freedom to do their job without ridicule. Whats the difference between a music pirate and someone who holds up a liquore store? Nothing, except that the music pirates are usually white. So I guess white people dont deserve to be punished as criminals. Nice try, Hitler.

This is hilarious! I'm going to go look up exactly where my freedom from ridicule is listed. I'm sure it's in the constitution somewhere.

I'm guessing sometimes people die in liquor store holdups. I'm also guessing the theif gets away with more than a $4 bottle of liquor. Oh, there's usually a weapon involved.

Then there's the "white guy gets speshul treetment" whine, classic.

Then, just when I thought it couldn't get any better, you mention Hitler. Golden.
 
2007-03-09 06:54:05 PM  
If you didn't listen to crappy music, you wouldn't have to be concerned with what the RIAA is doing.
 
2007-03-09 06:54:30 PM  
shipofthesun

Copying music is not illegal.

Yes it is, unless it's fair use. Copying a CD and giving it to your friend and downloading a song off of uTorrent is not fair use. Look at the federal copyright statute. It basically says all you need to do is copy something without authorization. That's it, end of story, unless your use falls into one of the specifically defined categories of fair use.
 
2007-03-09 06:54:31 PM  
2007-03-09 06:41:59 PM thegoodthebadthedumb


heavy metal
Watch the Grammy Awards or listen to top 40 radio. How many of the award winners or bands you hear on comercial radio do you find kick ass?

Your buddies at RIAA and record labels are more responsible for that than music downloaders. Get real.

If you are paying $18 for a new CD you are buying at the wrong place. At Best Buy they sell CD's at cost (to get you in the door) which is around $13 and a lot of the new releases are sold on special at $9.99. Then for older CDs there are used CDs which are as good as new ones since digital recordings don't degrade which are around $4.99.

Huh?

Like I said, rationalize it all you want but it is still stealing/

I haven't rationalized anything. Nor did I ever even say that I download music. I merely asked for empirical evidence of your overblown claim that downloading is driving musicians "out of business", so to speak. Evidence that you haven't yet provided.

And again, for the record people, copyright infringement is not theft, it's copyright infringement.
---------------------------------------------------------
I am being real, that is why they push that stuff. It is all that is left they can make money off of. You are being delusional.

If you want to prove me wrong, you find the empirical data to prove me wrong. Two can play that game.

You might not "download" but you are defending them. Copyrights are there to protect "intellectual" property. Taking property without permission or paying for it is stealing. You can quibble over semantics all you want but it is stealing. "Intellectual property" is still property.

Of course anything I write will not change your mind. Maybe one day you will have some sort of "intellectual property" you put a lot of work, money, time, and effort into which you hope to make money from but you can't sell it because everybody is copying it for free. That will be the only way you will see where I am comming from.

Until then, have a nice day.
 
2007-03-09 06:54:40 PM  
Irregardless: Stealing is stealing. By your rationale if I can break into a bank and download/transfer cash into my account by a "click" of a mouse then that's ok. It's not OK. It's theft.

You've hit the nail on the head. Notice how no one refuted you?

thegoodthebadthedumb: For the record, copyright infringement is not theft. It's copyright infringement.

If you infringe on a copyright that is not legally yours, you deny the legal copyright holder the ability to generate income off that property.

Let's put it this way... you have a lemon tree in your yard. You decide to set up a lemonade stand and sell your product for a dime a glass. Now I'm your neighbor. I have tool that allows me to pluck lemons from your tree without setting foot in your yard. I decide to set up a lemonade stand and give away the same product for free. Am I stealing your potential income... yes or no?
 
2007-03-09 06:55:38 PM  
kyoryu: It's the greatest scam ever. I can't think of why it works, except for the fact that young kids are stupid and bad at math.

And want to sit around and smoke weed and play Legend of Zelda when not actually having to, you know, work at it. Looking good > being talented, as always.
 
2007-03-09 06:55:39 PM  
shipofthesun: And we come to the point. Who is profiting from this?!! The students? This is covered under fair use.

It depends. Fair use doesn't mean you get to do whatever you like with it.

Copying music is not illegal.

It's a copyright infringement. And if the copyright holder wishes to go after you for it, then they have every right to do so.

Selling copied music is. To sue to stop these people from profiting on the songs is prior restraint. If you can prove they profited, then great. If not, STFU.

Copyright isn't just there to make sure others don't profit off of your work. It is there to protect the use and distribution of the work as well. That's why it's called copyright.
 
2007-03-09 06:57:57 PM  
pinch_harmonics -

In case nobody answered your question, "dismissed with prejudice" means that the claim can never be filed again, ever, in any court.

There are ways to recover the defendant's attorney fees, but it depends on the law under which the plaintiff filed the claim. Many employment lawsuits allow successful defendants (employers) to recoup fees and costs.
 
2007-03-09 06:57:58 PM  
Jeffool: Because ideas belong to us all. They are not 'property', despite the moniker of 'IP.'

Copyright covers tangible executions of created materials. It doesn't cover ideas. So we're on the same page here.

You're obviously a smart dude, and willing to take on many arguments at once (bonus points for that! ;) ) I'm sure you're well aware, copyrights are an agreement between the creator and "the people" that only the creator will have the right to use an idea for a limited period of time. After that time the idea passes into the public domain (passes to "the people",) where they truly exist anyway.

True. But I don't contest that. I support it. Artists should be able to reap the benefits from their creations for their entire lives. But there comes a time when those works should be be turned over to society as a whole.
 
2007-03-09 06:58:20 PM  
Gee, I wish I could download a pint of beer before I had to decide if I'd buy it.

IMHO: If I love the music, I have to respect the artist or band's right to make a buck off the music. Anybody who thinks they should be make an exception of; well, I guess it sucks to have YOU as a fan. Yeah, sure, hate the big labels, whatever. You probably hate paving companies and drive on the roads.

In other words, quit whining about the RIAA if you've been stealing music. Go to a record shop, band site, maybe try local bands' releases - OMG, there are small labels that I can respect and support!!!

Respects to those who still buy music from the people who make music.
 
2007-03-09 06:59:11 PM  
Dear RIAA;

You are not the FBI and do not have the authority to level charges of any kind. If you feel I have violated the law, please notify the Internet Crime Complaint Center and the Federal Bureau of Investigation. I will be happy to address any charges present by the federal government in relation to violations of the DCMA. Until then, I heartily recommend you go fark yourselves.

Regards,
Me
 
2007-03-09 07:01:50 PM  
Actually, this is really smart by the RIAA. If all students settle for $3000, that's the equivalent of buying 200 albums, which is more than most people buy in their song-buying lifetime.

After the settlement, the RIAA won't ever have to worry about people buying songs again, as they would have already gotten the money.

Then they can start suing people for *not* buying music, and then get even richer off of doing nothing.
 
2007-03-09 07:02:06 PM  
Gee, I wish I could download a pint of beer before I had to decide if I'd buy it.

If this doesn't happen in my life time, I will curse technology.
 
2007-03-09 07:02:49 PM  
untrustworthy: Artists should be able to reap the benefits from their creations for their entire lives.

We're just gonna have to disagree. Should a sign painter get paid every time his sign is looked at? He considers it art, but what if nobody is willing to pay? Should he be able to get the government to force people to pay to look at it, and photograph it? Light reflects off the sign, and there's nothing he can do about that. Or, should he put the sign up in a place where he can control who sees it, photographs it, and charge admission?
 
2007-03-09 07:04:25 PM  
jeffool

The reason we have limited time copyrights, as opposed to perpetual copyright, is that a time frame of limited use is exactly what makes people continue to innovate because they can't rely on the same ideas forever.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but copyrights last the lifetime of the copyright holder. So... if my copyright is reaping vast rewards as long as I live, how is that motivation for me, as the copyright holder, to make something new?
 
2007-03-09 07:04:57 PM  
Lalalala: If this doesn't happen in my life time, I will curse technology.

Now that I can agree on. MMmmm, liquid refreshment over the net.
 
2007-03-09 07:05:39 PM  
shipofthesun: We're just gonna have to disagree.

Don't throw in the towel yet.

Should a sign painter get paid every time his sign is looked at?

Copyright holders don't get compensated when people view their work. They are compensated when their works are reproduced.

He considers it art, but what if nobody is willing to pay? Should he be able to get the government to force people to pay to look at it, and photograph it? Light reflects off the sign, and there's nothing he can do about that. Or, should he put the sign up in a place where he can control who sees it, photographs it, and charge admission?

Photographing it could be an issue since it is making a copy. But that would depend on how that photograph was used. But copyright does not restrict the viewing of art. Only the reproduction of it.
 
2007-03-09 07:06:06 PM  
kickoutthelights: spend the time hunting down the album on some dumb p2p program
put the songs in order
find the album artwork
re-download the songs that were either (a) truncated recordings, (b) the wrong recordings, (c) just plain crappy recordings, or (d) are live recordings instead of studio cuts


You're doing it wrong. There are several private torrent sites that have requirements for every torrent.
1) Must be in order
2) Must have artwork
3) Must have a minimum bitrate of XXX

Straight p2p is great for finding that one song that's on the radio. Not full albums.

/You're telling me bands still make whole albums of good songs?
 
2007-03-09 07:06:40 PM  
darkscout: You're telling me bands still make whole albums of good songs?

Not many.
 
2007-03-09 07:07:25 PM  
muninsfire: untrustworthy: Right. But it is a nearly flawless step.

Sure. Just as casettes were 'nearly flawless' compared to vinyl.


Actually, mp3 compression technology results in a copy that is much reduced in sound quality over the music file stored on an actual store purchased CD.

/just saying
 
2007-03-09 07:07:29 PM  
untrustworthy
You need to do some research on digital music recordings. Your ravings on how this is somehow different than the way people have been making home recordings since the reel-to-reel days are totally without merit.

Until downloaded music is of exactly the same quality as a purchased CD it is EXACTLY the same as making a tape copy. In fact, my ripped music from CDs I purchased is worlds better than anything I've ever downloaded.

Also: Mp3 may only degrade once (when it's compressed) but when people use p2p there is a degradation for each copy. Didn't see that coming did you? I can download the same mp3 a dozen times and come up with a dozen different files.
though they appear to be the same, they do not sound that way. Ever had a downloaded mp3 "scratch" or change volume or tone? Happens all the time.
You wouldn't think this would happen, but the reality is that I can download a 128 mp3 more than once and get different quality files.

/Copyright infringement is not theft, it's copyright infringement. THEY'RE DIFFERENT
 
2007-03-09 07:07:33 PM  
untrustworthy: You need to do a little more research on copyright. It doesn't just effect musicians. It effects writers, photographers, designers, painters, architects, etc. etc. etc. And those people relied on their copyrights to make a living long before the digital era.

Ack, I totally forgot that part; my bad. You're right, it doesn't only affect musicians. (Though, for what it's worth, painters create a physical product to sell. A sole original artwork.) Yes, every one of those others deals completely in ideas. I talk a mean game about it all, but I don't think we're yet at a point where copyright should be tossed out. But I do think that it should be vastly parred back.

Originally copyright lasted seven years, right? Seven years to make money off of a book you wrote, a song you made, and photographs you took. That was when you had to ride to the printer on horse, have it printed up in a printing press (And how long did that take?), and distribution was much slower. And it was all more expensive.

Now, it only takes as long as it takes to write the material. You can instantly put it in a web-publishable form on websites to sell, and email pitches/samples to publishers that can have you in chain stores across the country, if not world, in months. And that's not counting self-publishing, that's just as viable now as it was then, only it's cheaper.

Why is it that as it's grown easier to exploit your copyright (exploit in a good way, to earn revenue,) the length of copyright has ballooned to seventy years after the death of the creator?! That's two lifetimes! (Assuming he created it early in his lifetime. One if later.)

From the wiki (np) : "With the passage of the Sonny Bono Copyright Term Extension Act, these works are granted copyright protection for a term ending seventy years after the death of the author. If the work was a work for hire (e.g., those created by a corporation) then copyright persists for 120 years after creation or 95 years after publication, whichever is shortest."

That's an abomination.
 
2007-03-09 07:08:20 PM  
Is it just me or has the RIAA taken a turn into what basically smells of an online/phone scam?

Wasn't too long ago that we had stories about people posing as FBI agents calling people to inform them about a hit put out on them, and then asking for $xxxxx to call said hit off.


RIAA = online/phone scammers
 
2007-03-09 07:10:51 PM  
Ever see a 2+ Hour DVD that costs less than the 45-90min soundtrack?
WTF is up with that?
 
2007-03-09 07:10:52 PM  
Jeffool: That's an abomination.

That's a Disney!
 
2007-03-09 07:11:50 PM  
I heart Arbitrator.

Also, rather than arguing semantics over whether or not the amount is ridiculous, and how much students should pay for their crappy pop music, anyway, I just want to point out how stupid it is to tie up the court systems with the ridiculous number of lawsuits coming through over this. The courts should be hearing about important things. Like divorces.
 
2007-03-09 07:12:30 PM  
Aevum: Until downloaded music is of exactly the same quality as a purchased CD it is EXACTLY the same as making a tape copy. In fact, my ripped music from CDs I purchased is worlds better than anything I've ever downloaded.

No it isn't. While the quality of the compressed copy may be less, it doesn't continue to degrade and can be copied countless times without further reduction in quality.

Also: Mp3 may only degrade once (when it's compressed) but when people use p2p there is a degradation for each copy. Didn't see that coming did you? I can download the same mp3 a dozen times and come up with a dozen different files.

The only way that happens is if someone alters the file by further compressing it. Otherwise, the file itself does not degrade normally. Digital can be copied endlessly and every copy will be identical.

/Copyright infringement is not theft, it's copyright infringement. THEY'RE DIFFERENT

Show me one place where I ever said otherwise. In fact, if you look through this thread you'll find that I said exactly that a few times. Settle down, sparky.
 
2007-03-09 07:13:31 PM  
Cleveland-Steamer, you may have read the above post I made, but if not, (I usually scan for my name, you may also) copyright originally lasted seven years. They ran out to encourage people to continue to create. Now that they don't run out, well, Disney's still pumping out cartoons from the fifties and they sell like hotcakes.

Cinderella belongs to us all, damn it!

/That's really what this is about, for me.
 
2007-03-09 07:14:29 PM  
Jeffool: Why is it that as it's grown easier to exploit your copyright (exploit in a good way, to earn revenue,) the length of copyright has ballooned to seventy years after the death of the creator?! That's two lifetimes! (Assuming he created it early in his lifetime. One if later.)

I think you just answered your own question. Hundreds of years ago it was hard to make unauthorized copies. So copyright wasn't as big of a deal. Now that it is easier to make copies, the benefits need to reside with the creator. After all, if you record a great song, why should Ford get to use it to promote their product in 10 years from now without compensating you? Does that seem fair?
 
2007-03-09 07:14:34 PM  
heavy metal

I am being real, that is why they push that stuff. It is all that is left they can make money off of. You are being delusional.

So before downloading, all Top 40, big label music was so full of artistic merit, huh? Who's being delusional? I can't believe I'm even arguing this. How old are you?

You might not "download" but you are defending them.

I am? Find one post where I defend downloaders. Waiting.


If you want to prove me wrong, you find the empirical data to prove me wrong. Two can play that game.

No. Two cannot play that game. I'm not the one making up claims and then not backing them up when asked for empirical proof. You are.


RocketRod

If you infringe on a copyright that is not legally yours, you deny the legal copyright holder the ability to generate income off that property.

No I don't. He is still free to sell his property. One can argue that he may have a more difficult time doing so, but he is NOT being denied that ability.

Re: your lemon tree example, NO you have NOT stolen my "potential income". There is no such thing as "theft of potential income". You stole my lemons. If you were to press charges against me, the prosecutor would not add a count for "theft of potential income". He would charge me for larceny for stealing the lemon.

People who criminally violate copyright laws are charged with criminal infringment. Not theft, not conversion, not anything else. Criminal infringment is a separate and distinct crime - 17 U.S.C. 506.
 
2007-03-09 07:15:43 PM  
untrustworthy: The only way that happens is if someone alters the file by further compressing it. Otherwise, the file itself does not degrade normally. Digital can be copied endlessly and every copy will be identical.

Man that is just so wrong. Nothing is bit perfect when you copy it. Especially audio. You drop a bit, and you will hear it. Mp3's and other lossy compressions schemes are throwing away so much info already that any loss is going to be heard.
 
Displayed 50 of 371 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | » | Last | Show all



This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
Advertisement
On Twitter





In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report