Stop Microsoft
Miscellaneous => Intellectual Property & Law => Topic started by: Laukev7 on 5 September 2003, 07:34
-
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20030905/ap_on_hi_te/downloading_music (http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20030905/ap_on_hi_te/downloading_music)
How generous of them! It couldn't be because they can't actually sue millions of downloaders, could it? :rolleyes:
-
quote:
Originally posted by Laukev7: Defender of Canada:
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20030905/ap_on_hi_te/downloading_music (http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20030905/ap_on_hi_te/downloading_music)
How generous of them! It couldn't be because they can't actually sue millions of downloaders, could it? :rolleyes:
ummm... sounds like a good deal to me. And yes... I think they would be allowed to sue people that steal from them.
-
quote:
I think they would be allowed to sue people that steal from them.
I didn't say anything about them being allowed to sue them or not. What I'm saying here is that it shows that they make empty threats.
-
Yah what did they say it would take like 200 years to file every subpoena needed to sue all downloaders
-
quote:
Originally posted by jeffberg: Mac Capitalist:
ummm... sounds like a good deal to me. And yes... I think they would be allowed to sue people that steal from them.
It's not "stealing." Stealing is a different crime. It's copyright violation. People need to get this straight.
I never used Kazaa or napster or morpheous, and if I find a p2p program on a machine that I'm responsible for, it gets wiped immediately, so this doesn't make much of a difference to me one way or the other.
But the tactics of the RIAA, MPAA, and BSA disturb me. This "amnesty" smells like a trap. Why does someone have to send them a notarized doucument and a photo ID copy??? Why doesn't an infringer just have to wipe the files and uninstall whatever tool he/she used?
And ironically, although RIAAs threats and lawsuits and subpoenas are reducing downloads, CD sales are still decreasing (see slashdot story (http://slashdot.org/articles/03/09/04/1444243.shtml?tid=141&tid=188&tid=98&tid=99)).
[ September 05, 2003: Message edited by: M. O'Brien ]
-
quote:
Originally posted by M. O'Brien:
It's not "stealing." Stealing is a different crime. It's copyright violation. People need to get this straight.
[ September 05, 2003: Message edited by: M. O'Brien ]
I don't see why everyone has to get so technical when I say stealing. Your taking something that is not yours and you did not pay for. That is stealing.
That is like saying stealing a car is not stealing... but grand theft auto. It makes no difference... the result is the same (someone still stole your car).
-
quote:
Originally posted by jeffberg: Mac Capitalist:
ummm... sounds like a good deal to me. And yes... I think they would be allowed to sue people that steal from them.
we can almost use you as a social barometer. just find out what you say and 90% of the time it's safe to say the utter opposite is true.
-
quote:
I don't see why everyone has to get so technical when I say stealing. Your taking something that is not yours and you did not pay for. That is stealing.
I think we should be able to sue the publishers, and spineless artists who collaborate with them, who attempt to restrict our freedom of speech, or, as I like to term it, anally rape us. Oh ok they're not technically 'raping' us, but it's a good word to use anyway.
[ September 05, 2003: Message edited by: flap ]
-
(http://morpho.dar.net/~northrup/images/riaa.jpg) (http://www.atpm.com/8.04/barline.shtml)
-
quote:
And ironically, although RIAAs threats and lawsuits and subpoenas are reducing downloads, CD sales are still decreasing (see slashdot story).
Who do you sue when you release crap music though? I must admit it would be funny to see Britneys label sue her for poor sales ^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H poor singing ^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H stealing profits. (http://smile.gif)
We refer to Grand Theft Auto as stealing because it is a specific subset of stealing. As in it's covered by the same laws as theft of any other physical possession, but it has more specific rules - kinda like we call "killing babies" infanticide and "killing royal people" regicide - specific terminology. "Copyright (or BLDTLUSYC*) infringememt " however is not a specific subset of "stealing" it is a seperate legal term, and covered by different laws. I can walk around all I like saying "RIAA releases shit music" and yes it will hurt their profits, but it's not theft. Might be covered by slander laws, but slander isn't theft.
* Big Legal Document That Lets You Shaft Your Customers (well most of the time - such as EULAS etcetera.)
edit1:
Flap, Calum I don't know whos post I like more. (http://smile.gif)
edit2:
quote:
Von Lohmann cautioned that the RIAA doesn't represent all copyright owners and therefore couldn't guarantee an Internet user wouldn't be sued for infringement by others, despite what amounts to an admission of guilt.
"It's not the kind of agreement that most people's lawyers will embrace," he said.
I wonder if this is just a "now we know who you are" offer?
[ September 05, 2003: Message edited by: Faust ]
[ September 05, 2003: Message edited by: Faust ]
-
The reason it isn't stealing is simply because the owner isn't deprived of what's been 'taken'. The reason why stealing is a problem for the victim is because when they have something stolen they cease to posess it. It's not the fact that the thief now posesses it that bothers them, but simply the fact that they don't have the item anymore. You can't compare copying to stealing because with duplication the owner (in this case the copyright owner) still has the original.
Actually I would approve of the RIAA continuing to use the word "stealing" because it's so easy to ridicule this argument.
-
Isn't 'piracy' a more appropriate term than 'stealing'?
-
Well considering 'piracy' refers to the act of attacking + looting a ship, I think that's a lot worse than calling it 'stealing'. You may as well call it 'arson' as call it piracy.
-
it's just home taping, but with your computer instead of tapes.
here's seven pages of whether it's stealing or not (http://forum.microsuck.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=7&t=001398) from last month.
and here's some more of the same (http://forum.microsuck.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=7&t=001540)
just search in the lounge for riaa if you have a couple of hours to waste on this subject.
-
No one mentioned the obvious one:
http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/words-to-avoid.html#TOCPiracy (http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/words-to-avoid.html#TOCPiracy)
There we go all better. (http://smile.gif)
-
quote:
Originally posted by flap:
Well considering 'piracy' refers to the act of attacking + looting a ship, I think that's a lot worse than calling it 'stealing'. You may as well call it 'arson' as call it piracy.
Dictionary time.
http://m-w.com/ (http://m-w.com/)
quote:
1 : an act of robbery on the high seas; also : an act resembling such robbery
2 : robbery on the high seas
3 : the unauthorized use of another's production, invention, or conception especially in infringement of a copyright
-
Well obviously now that it's been used so much in that context it's been accepted into common english. In Nazi Germany the term "Jewish" might have been in the dictionary as a synonym for "evil" but it wouldn't make it any less an inappropriate application of an unrelated word.
[ September 05, 2003: Message edited by: flap ]
-
How is it 'unappropriate'? It's just a word. Words only have the meanings we give them.
-
How is what innapropriate? Using "Jewish" as a term for "evil"? Or calling copying "piracy"? Either way it's not just a case of assigning meaning to arbitrary words - otherwise you might as well call unauthorised copying "arson", or "pole vaulting" for that matter.
As that link faust gave points out, the use of a term like piracy is non-neutral. It's designed to manipulate people into viewing copying as being bad without thinking about it, or deciding for themselves whether 'unauthorised copying' (a neutral term that, although it implies illegality, isn't strong enough to imply intrinsic immorality) is right or wrong.
[ September 05, 2003: Message edited by: flap ]
-
In that case, you shouldn't call it 'sharing' either, as it gives an overly positive connotation to illegal copying, and would be stretching the definition of 'sharing'.
-
Ok, sharing is is a non-neutral term, but copying is sharing, regardless of whether you also believe it's morally wrong. If you steal money from someone and then share it out amongst your friends you're still sharing, regardless of the fact that you've done something that is by any definition 'stealing'.
-
I'm not saying that copying isn't sharing because I think sharing is wrong. I'm saying that copying isn't sharing because as soon as you reproduce a CD, you aren't sharing anymore. Like this definition implies:
quote:
1 : to divide and distribute in shares : APPORTION -- usually used with out or with
2 a : to partake of, use, experience, occupy, or enjoy with others b : to have in common
3 : to grant or give a share in
intransitive senses
1 : to have a share -- used with in
2 : to apportion and take shares of something
- shar
-
More lies from the RIAA.
http://yro.slashdot.org/yro/03/09/06/1911237.shtml?tid=103&tid=153&tid=158&tid=99 (http://yro.slashdot.org/yro/03/09/06/1911237.shtml?tid=103&tid=153&tid=158&tid=99)
Now they're using straw men.
-
quote:
Originally posted by Laukev7: Defender of Canada:
More lies from the RIAA.
http://yro.slashdot.org/yro/03/09/06/1911237.shtml?tid=103&tid=153&tid=158&tid=99 (http://yro.slashdot.org/yro/03/09/06/1911237.shtml?tid=103&tid=153&tid=158&tid=99)
Now they're using straw men.
Wow... the RIAA has some damn good lawyers working for them. I would never have thought to use a law required age verification device. That is such a good idea. Because there is porn on p2p's. So legally (according to that news) the apps must have age verification. I would never have thought up such an elaborate scheme to get personal info.
thumbs up for clever thinking
thumbs down for the lack of ethics
-
quote:
Originally posted by jeffberg: Mac Capitalist:
Wow... the RIAA has some damn good lawyers working for them. I would never have thought to use a law required age verification device. That is such a good idea. Because there is porn on p2p's. So legally (according to that news) the apps must have age verification. I would never have thought up such an elaborate scheme to get personal info.
thumbs up for clever thinking
thumbs down for the lack of ethics
Yeppers. It's a bunch of lies and half truths but its damned clever. We better hope they never get this BS passed.
-
(http://www.userfriendly.org/cartoons/archives/03sep/uf005917.gif)
-
Update.
http://www.pcworld.com/news/article/0,aid,112362,00.asp (http://www.pcworld.com/news/article/0,aid,112362,00.asp)