Stop Microsoft
Miscellaneous => Intellectual Property & Law => Topic started by: lazygamer on 26 November 2002, 07:57
-
The corps step up the war... (http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/6/28286.html)
quote:
The Danish Anti Pirat Gruppen (Anti Piracy Group) has issued invoices of up to $14,000 apiece to approximately 150 users of KaZaA and eDonkey for illegally downloading copyright material.
APG monitored the file sharing networks for available files with Danish IP addresses - and went to court to get the users' personal details from their ISPs, armed with screen shots of, for example, the KaZaA window showing the files on the user's hard-drive. The courts obliged and ordered the ISPs to deliver the personal details of the incriminated users. Then the bills were in the post ... landing on the mats of the unfortunate downloaders over the last few days.
The users are charged about $16 per CD and about $60 per full length movie. If they pay now - and delete the illegal content from their hard drives - then the amount is cut in half and they avoid going to court. Those who don't pay up are to be sued.
Question is: if the APG has only the file names from KaZaA or eDonkey - how can it make sure that they really are illegal files and not only "similar named files" or hoax files? Can APG prove that is the work of a certain user in a household - or will it go for the entire family?
We'll keep you posted ...
-
Why not just reinstate slavery. May as well considering how far things have gone. Only this time, not just blacks, everyone with less than a million dollars would become a slave.
[ November 25, 2002: Message edited by: Comrade Doctor V: Linux Pusher ]
-
hahahaa, NO, everybody will be enslaved in the future, look at the laws and actions of this contry, hell, the governemnt allmost has us enslaved, look at our fucking taxs. tax what we make, tax how we spend, tax for the fuck of it, hell, if patrick henry/*i think thats his name*/ saw todays taxs, hed say no taxation period, i bet hes rolling in his grave
-
Not everyone pays taxes. Microsoft dosn't. Most large enterprises don't. There are loopholes in the laws that allow large companys to avoid them completely. The tax laws are so complicated, a whole room could be filled by tax law documentation.
I think tax law should be simplified and re-written so that all of it could fit on to one sheet of paper.
-
Ok being optimistic, we might get the chance at a first world country revolution someday. Just because it is harder to succeed at then in the past, doesn't mean its impossible.
So if a new democracy is formed, perhaps safeguards could be added to greatly extend it's lifespan. It just feels like laws of the universe.
LAW #1:You can only push people so far before they rebel.
LAW #2:You cannot enslave people permanantly.
Technology makes it harder to rally people to overthrow a government, and technology makes it harder for the people to succeed, but it never becomes impossible.
-
Neither APG nor their swedish counterpart really has any legal right to do like this. In Sweden they are fighting a losing battle because of a court ruling two years ago when one of ministers in our government burned a CD and gave it to one of her nieces as a christmas gift.
Also, in Sweden all companies must pay taxes, but it
-
Austrlaia offically sucks ass, over here there is lots of tax. There is public liability insurance, all sorts of bullshit... In australia a 12 year old kid was selling stuff on the side of the road to try and buy a new bike. But the lovly austrlaian Liberal party has made it that he has to pay for a $1M insurance policy. How is that just?
Im sick of democracy, it does not work. It only makes about 3 good partys, and 60 other independant partys have a big popularity race. The best looking candidate gets the vote. Not the most truthful.
Fuck Democracy!
-
OK, consider this then: Democracy is three wolves and a sheep voting on what
-
WHAT THE FUCK!!??? THIS ISN'T THE INTERNET ANYMORE, ITS ONE BIG COMMERCIAL!!
-
que?
-
If ya do the crime ya gotta do the time. I think it's funny and I hope they go to jail. Listen to your damn selves talking about killing people because your illegal activity might finally be catching up with you. There are of course, alternatives. Maybe you don't find the alternatives as pleasing. Well then fucking pay up, how hard is that? If you can't afford it, tough shit. Use the alternatives. If you break the law, then be prepared to take responsibility for your actions. If you really want to hurt the bastards, then don't use their products.
[ November 26, 2002: Message edited by: void main ]
-
good point
-
quote:
Originally posted by cahult:
Neither APG nor their swedish counterpart really has any legal right to do like this. In Sweden they are fighting a losing battle because of a court ruling two years ago when one of ministers in our government burned a CD and gave it to one of her nieces as a christmas gift.
Also, in Sweden all companies must pay taxes, but it
-
Really, well you can vote a new moderator, see my sig.
-
I think fining someone $14,000 for downloading MP3s is like giving someone 20 years prison time for jaywalking. The RIAA is guilty of pleant of crimes of their own. Collusion is illegal isn't it? Yet somehow the price of CDs has risen to nearly $20 dispite the cost to make them diminishing. The RIAA's trade agreements also see to it that they do not compete at all for the artists. Instead artists are forced to choose between bum deals that screw them over from one of several colluding labels. I don't understand why someone should go to jail for downloading an MP3 dispite the RIAA people not going to jail for collusion.
New technology has made the current record labels less of a necessity to society. Now, they no longer serve the public, but only serve their own interests at the expense of the public. They are using every vehicle at their disposal to keep the system of the past in place. And it hurts everybody but themselves.
Also, lobbying by the RIAA has pushed the law so heavily in favor of the labels and against the public, they are IMO illegitimate. They have even lobbied laws that make a division of their own organization have complete control of all audio webcasting, even when there is a contract betoeen the webcaster and an artist who has produced his own cd.
Opressive laws should be fought against. Opressive laws are followed by cowards and the best word to describe a person who publicly breaks one is: Hero. A couple of names come to mind, Rosa Parks, and Ghandi. --Should the owner of the bus company be able to say who sits where? Its his bus company right, he can do whatever he wants. If he wants all black people to sit in the back, then they either should or they can walk to work everyday.-- Sorry, not going to go for it. Boycotts don't always work, sometimes the people have to take action.
-
I understand your skepticism voidmain, but your comments show a high degree of support for our current society. Are you one of those 40+ year old forumites, or is that Calum? Lol, I can see how those 0ld d00dz are stuck in their rocking chairs. (http://smile.gif)
What your saying Voidmain, is that the law is the law. Whether that law harms someone or helps someone doesn't matter. It doesn't matter just who exactly is getting harmed or hurt. To you, society is king and it's important to uphold most laws. Only the most extreme or crazy of laws deserve defiance.
Why have such support for our corps and our society? Didn't this society you support spawn RIAA and Microsoft?
-
You read it completely 180 degrees backwards. You said you wanted to fuck somebody up. And I said the way to really fuck them up is to stop supporting them. It's easy. If enough people get pissed off and enough people won't stand for it and enough people stop supporting them they are either going to have to change or go out of business. Which do you think they will choose? If they don't sell they don't stay in business. They will squeeze every penny out of you they can until they reach the threshold of pain. In your case, along with many others, that threshold has arrived. Now it's time for action, action that is legal.
It's called a "boycott". It's one of the variables in a capitalist system. There's no need to break the law when the masses can make a change by boycotting. You see, you have to make the commitment yourself, then you get a few friends on board to make the commitment. If enough people make the commitment things will change.
You don't have to resort to violence or breaking the existing laws. You change them as long as the majority feel as you do. If you are in the minority and you resort to violence to get your way then you are nothing more than what GeeDubya would call a terrorist. And what are we talking about here? Luxory items, not necessities. If enough people will give up their luxory items (even their illegal ones) for just a short amount of time, things can change very quickly.
So don't buy (or steal) that X-Box, don't buy (or steal) that music, don't buy (or steal) that copy of Windows. You can get by in the mean time using Linux, free music. I was in a band and we have an album out on the net, Calum has music out there, and there is a boatload of good free music out there. You never know, you might grow to like the free stuff and never want to go back even if they do lower their prices and change the laws.
[ November 26, 2002: Message edited by: void main ]
-
and this is why the legions of dumbasses who think pirating hurts companies will have to rethink their ideas a bit or nothing will change. They won't though as that will deprive them of their warez. pity they ddon't realise there are plenty of legitimate alternatives these days, hmm lazygamer?
-
Just to clarify the "anti-piracy" view here, do you think that "pirating" non-free software/music is worse, better or just as bad as paying for it?
-
Copying non-free stuff for personal consumption is fine - if you have the artists permission. That is legal, acceptable and there is nothing a record company or a lawyer can do about it (unless they own all rights). It is considered advertising and is fine both ethically and legally.
But with Kazaa - nah this is bullshit. I know so many people who use it, and what do they do - they download eminem and the matrix. Sorry but that is not acceptable. If you support an artist you are prepared to pay them money, if you are not prepared to pay them money then you do not like them enough, and therefore you should not support them. By consuming this material you are crowding the pantheon of artists and leaving less room for the truly talented.
It's a wake up call. The TCPA/RIAA will keep on suceeding because people do not have the balls to say yeah thats a fun song but I'm not going to listen to it because it is not a great song.
The ONLY way you will get your message across is if you stop wasting time listening to the same old same old. You have to live your own life - too many people are stuck in apathy, living their lives through other people. I get up each day and I am so happy to be alive, and my happiness has nothing to do with hollywood, AOL Time/Warner, Microsoft, etc. Whereas all those people I know who use Kazaa and the like, they live their lives through entertainment, their lives are ruled by the what did you watch last night?, what movie will you see this weekend?, what latest musician are you listening to?, and almost never do I hear the voice of thought, the voice of an individual saying there is a string quartet playing in the social center, I'm gonna check that out, as I've never really listened to a string quartet. Because they haven't got the balls.
Choose Life for fucks sake. If your happiness depends on owning every harry potter movie that gets made, and having a copy of every Linkin Park album then you, my friend, have serious problems, and your money would be better spent on a phsyciatrist.
-
music is a different thing entirely. green day went and encouraged bootlegging of their music. so did the dead. radiohead think it's a good idea.
What i'm talking about is copying live music, and live music is always different from the released product. i'm more likely to prefer the live versions of things, but many people will buy the lp on the strength of a live set. As for copying albums, i honestly think that having a copied lp is not the same as owning the real thing, and that if you can put up with having a copy then fine. i'd prefer the real thing though. i buy as much music as i can and copy the music i can't afford, if i can.
with music a lot of artists don't mind whether you copy their stuff, it's their representative companies, labels, agents et c that try to stop you.
With software, programmers and their companies seem to be united in trying to stop you copying their product, or else they are united in allowing you to copy their procudt. this battle between a liberal minded programmer and a hard nosed software company does not occur like it does in the music industry.
Also, using a copied version of a program is identical in all real respects to using a real copy. I copy an lp onto tape, i hear tape hiss. i copy it onto a CD, i still don't get the real liner notes, if i copy a copy of microsoft windows and install it on a PC, who can tell it was installed from a copy?
the issue is more complicated than comparing it to the music industry.
-
It's the artists' fault for signing up with a record label in the first place. If they want their stuff to be distributed without restriction they shouldn't sell out their copyright to the labels.
It's not a matter of supporting the artists - if you want to support them you can download their music and then mail them a cheque for a couple of
-
i agree! why hasn't shareware music ever caught on?
actually the reason it hasn't caught on is that the main reason to pay for shareware is to get tech support. this is not necessary for music, yet another reason that music and software cannot be compared as a product.
-
Because nobody pays for shareware. Oh there are 1 or 2 who pay out of thousands. Back in the late 80's I wrote a couple of shareware programs used for administering a BBS. One of the programs was used by every admin of this particular BBS software around the world. I know because there were FIDO and Metrolink threads where this program was discussed. I don't recall getting a single registration on this particular program, and I was only asking $5. I wrote another shareware app that was more widely used that I believe I got two registrations for, also $5.
-
quote:
and this is why the legions of dumbasses who think pirating hurts companies will have to rethink their ideas a bit or nothing will change. They won't though as that will deprive them of their warez. pity they ddon't realise there are plenty of legitimate alternatives these days, hmm lazygamer?
Lol, alternatives? ;)
Agh, but I like my mass market Eminem! Surely it's ok to listen to and pirate your "popular" shit, just as long as you listen to, and pay for, independant stuff?
It just don't add up though. What's the difference between pirating to harm and boycotting to harm? No money=no money. With MS I can understand, but music?
-
You pirate to harm, you boycott to "change". Pirating only induces more of what you call stupid laws. If you boycotted rather than pirated there would be no such thing as DRM that does nothing more than fuck over the rest of us who don't pirate. Now stop doing it before I send my thugs up there to rough you up. (http://smile.gif)
[ November 26, 2002: Message edited by: void main ]
-
When you Boycott you don't buy their product. When you pirate it can be considered advertising, someone might hear your copy and buy one. When you boycott the product stays on the shelf. The popular loving sheep out there see oh it's not selling very well, and if it is not popular it must be crap :rolleyes: .
Also boycotting stops the company - and that means they can't sell other stuff - it hits their wallet directly - because the stores send the stuff back unsold - or do not buy off them next time, because they know there is a boycott, and the stuff is just going to sit there taking up stock space.
-
I agree with Flap. When you buy a CD, just hopw much money do you think goes to the actual artist? Would you be shocked if I told you almost none!!!??? Artists make the bulk of there money off of live performances. That's why some artists that sell millions of copies of their album but do not tour, often don't make it for long.
Another point to raise is that the RIAA is not needed. They rob the consumer, they rob the artist. Filesharing is the future of music advertising but many of you fail to realize that it IS advertising!
Scenario 1) During the Napster campaign, filesharing was booming. There were millions of people sharing music all over the world. Was this hurting record sales? As a matter of fact, during the same time when Napster reached it's peak of popularity, record sales reached record highs! Why, you ask? Because filesharing=advertising. Someone downloads a song (noting that it is not as high quality as the original CD would otherwise be), likes it, goes and buys the CD. Granted, not all cases are this way but many, many are.
Scenario 2) A new independant artist wants to get his name out there to the people. He records a couple of songs and sends them out on Kazaa or Gnutella. The files spread. Some people in his area download the songs, and like them. Soon, he puts up flyers to tell people of a live show he's putting on. People come, his popularity grows. The cyle continues with more music.
To truely make music means to truely understand what you are making the music for. The answer is NOT MONEY!!!!! For those of you people out there that say musicians should get paid for makin music miss the point entirely and regard making music as a job. Most musicians today make a career out of making music and this is precisely the reason why music sucks today. No body wants to make music for the hell of makin music anymore.
-
I agree here. There's so much great stuff that people never hear because nobody thinks that it would sell.
I know that I'm most likely doomed to being a blue collar guy to support my music. I'm too far from the norm in wanting to do things that I consder to be "genreless music".
I think people would like it but I can neither afford to have it recorded, can't afford my own recording gear, and can't find anyone who would think of helping.
Capitalism sucks raunchy balls.
-
If Scenerio 1 is true then why are they going to such great lengths to install copy protection within the media and the players, and I believe also to be the reason for the emergence of Palladium. If people were honest and didn't "steal" there would be no need for Palladium, copy protected discs and players.
It pisses me off because if it weren't for this shit I could play my DVDs through my VCR rather than having to unplug my VRC from the TV and plug the player in directly. I could make backup copies of my media for my own *personal* use, as in an actual literal backup. Now they are coming out with Paladium and DRM built in to CDRW drives that give me real concerns if I will even be able to use Linux on any future hardware. All because people are thieves.
Scenerio 2 is good but it also makes people believe that all music can be handled this way, even if it produced and distributed under a completely different license/contract. It's sort of like Linux vendors allowing you to download a copy of their OS in hopes that you will buy a boxed set some day. This is my preferred method. But because RedHat has such a deal, don't assume that it's OK to go download an ISO containing a cracked version of XP. That's the logic people have today, it's not right.
If they want it to change they need to boycott. Pirating will only cause more activation mechanisms which costs a lot of money to implement and pisses people like me off. Boycotting will solve the problem. It's harder to boycott, it actually takes a little thought and organization. Anybody can be a common thief. Is it that hard to play by the rules? Apparently it is in today's society, so sad.
-
quote:
Originally posted by void main:
You pirate to harm, you boycott to "change". Pirating only induces more of what you call stupid laws. If you boycotted rather than pirated there would be no such thing as DRM that does nothing more than fuck over the rest of us who don't pirate. Now stop doing it before I send my thugs up there to rough you up. (http://smile.gif)
[ November 26, 2002: Message edited by: void main ]
My question is: exactly how much do you want people to boycott? Are you asking us to boycott *all* proprietary software and *all* non-free music? And, more importantly, are you asking people to not buy as well as not copy stuff?
-
I'm not asking you to boycott *anything*. I am asking for you not to pirate. I am asking for *you* to boycott if you feel strongly against something. If I agree with you I will join in your boycott. If I do not I will not. I have a personal boycott against all Microsoft products but so far 95% of the population are not with me on this yet. I hope this site levels the numbers a little more. If you have a problem with a record label or group, boycott them.
[ November 26, 2002: Message edited by: void main ]
-
Well by definition I have 'a problem' to differing degrees with all proprietary software vendors, record labels and all other proponents of the intellectual property/copyright regime.
I just think that, in the short-term, a person does a lot more harm buying, say, a CD than downloading it. If you manage to get people to stop 'pirating' they're just going to start buying again; they're not going to look for alternatives. Perhaps not with software, but that's certainly the case with music/films.
-
quote:
Originally posted by flap:
Well by definition I have 'a problem' to differing degrees with all proprietary software vendors, record labels and all other proponents of the intellectual property/copyright regime.
So because of that you believe that gives you the right to steal from them? If it's a slight problem you voice your opinion to them If it's a large problem you don't use their product.
-
I don't suffer from the harmful misconception that information is akin to physical property so I don't see that it's possible to "steal" it.
If you're asking me do I feel that people have the right to go against an artist/programmer's wishes and copy their data without their consent? Yes, I do. I don't, however, feel that the artist has the right to tell others what they can and can't do with a reproducable pattern of bits that they happen to have originated, once they have decided to distribute it at all.
-
So then you will have no problem with me blaming you for Palladium and new CDRW drives that will be totally worthless to me? Things that are going to cost me extra money and provide me no benefit, in fact hamper my normal legal activity.
[ November 26, 2002: Message edited by: void main ]
-
I think this whole fire-sharing issue could have went away a long time ago if the record companies would have only accepted Napster's original settlement and had Napster charge a monthly fee for their services, with royalties proportional to the songs being downloaded.
As it is, there are several reasons why people download songs:
1. People don't want to buy a $20 CD that has one song on it that they like.
2. They download songs to sample what may be on a CD they're interested in buying.
3. Band directors do it to hear recordings of pieces they're thinking about performing with their band.
There are other reasons other than these, not everyone downloads songs just to avoid paying for them. For these and other reasons, having a monthly subscription services makes the most sense. Companies like Press Play have the right idea, however their song selection is limited, and you can only download songs in WMA format (and Windows Media Player is required I think).
This isn't to say that the paying service will suddenly oust all the free services, but if a paying service had the flexibility and choice of music that a free service such as Napster, Audiogalaxy, or Kazaa have, it could become a gold mine both for the service and for all record companies.
-
the only way i would pay for a service like that, is if i could download the songs to my drive, and do whatever the hell i wanted with it. meaning, i could burn it to a cd for my car, have it on my laptop, and maybe even an mp3 player. i dont want any of the bullshit licensing that goes along with it, like if i download a song, i can only listen to it on the machine it was downloaded to, unless i move the license too, which means it can only be on one machine. when i buy a cd, i want to be able to rip to my mac, throw the disc into my closet, then maybe burn it back to cd for my car. that way i have the original, and dont have to worry about it getting stolen out of my car.
i also dont want to be told how to use the music i bought. "hey, here is your new car, now remember, only drive on these roads, and please dont park it anywhere except your driveway, oh yeah, if you want people to drive with you, better buy this deluxe family package, it comes with 4 seats."
would you buy that car?
-
Don't look at me; I never said *I* was a "pirate" - That would be against the law. I'm just debating hypothetically the ethics of it.
And I would prefer that you placed the blame for Microsoft's Draconian measures firmly with Microsoft. But that's a completely separate issue from the intellectual 'property' argument.
-
quote:
Originally posted by flap:
And I would prefer that you placed the blame for Microsoft's Draconian measures firmly with Microsoft. But that's a completely separate issue from the intellectual 'property' argument.
I do, and that's why I don't use their products. I also believe in the freedom of information and that's why I use Linux and open formats. I don't believe that gives me the right to break the law and take information from people who do not believe in this. If enough people do the same as I the people that do not believe in freedom of information will be forced to become believers.
[ November 26, 2002: Message edited by: void main ]
-
quote:
Originally posted by Xyle: Mac Commando:
the only way i would pay for a service like that, is if i could download the songs to my drive, and do whatever the hell i wanted with it. meaning, i could burn it to a cd for my car, have it on my laptop, and maybe even an mp3 player. i dont want any of the bullshit licensing that goes along with it, like if i download a song, i can only listen to it on the machine it was downloaded to, unless i move the license too, which means it can only be on one machine. when i buy a cd, i want to be able to rip to my mac, throw the disc into my closet, then maybe burn it back to cd for my car. that way i have the original, and dont have to worry about it getting stolen out of my car.
i also dont want to be told how to use the music i bought. "hey, here is your new car, now remember, only drive on these roads, and please dont park it anywhere except your driveway, oh yeah, if you want people to drive with you, better buy this deluxe family package, it comes with 4 seats."
would you buy that car?
Which was exactly what I was saying. You'd be able to do all of this if a paying service was as flexible as the free ones are now. I said that Press Play is a step in the right direction, but the fact that you can only download in WMA format and have a bunch of restrictions is not exactly a smart move.
-
actually, a co-worker just downloaded pressplay and windows media player 9 (i told him no). i dont like it. it only supports wma, and you cant move the music from machine to machine. well, you can, but you have to buy a license for it. so far i think it is crap, but maybe they will make it more suitable for my tastes..
-
File sharing, AKA piracy is the best thing to have ever happened to music.
The record labels are only the means of getting the music from the artists' music to the public. New technology allows the public to get that music without the middleman, or label. The labels' trade agreements have created an oligopoly that is very rich and powerful. They will do anything to supress the technology that helps both musicians and the public. Notice, they have not just attacked those who distrubute their copyrighted material, they have attacked all file sharing. Its all about power and control.
quote:
Originally said by Mr. Valenti, the president of the Motion Picture Association of America before the house Judiciary comittee
The growing and dangerous intrusion of this new technology threatens an entire industry's economic vitality and future security. (The new technology) is to the American film producer and the American public as the Boston Strangler is to the woman alone."
This was said in 1982 about video tapes. Think if the RIAA/MPAA got their way back then. There would be no VCRs, and no tape recorders. File sharing will be the video tapes of the future. The success of VCRs and tape recorders was not the result of a boycott, it was because they became widespread too fast, and the trade unions did not have the power to stop them. Today, with mM$'s monopoly, the RIAA just might win. One company has the power to restrict what 90% of consumers do. If there were competition, of course, DRM would never succeed, software providers would not offer it cause it would not be the choice of the customers, and doing so would lead to losing market share. The same could happen with M$, but the are sitting on a 40 billion cash hoard and have 90-95% market share, it could well succeed.
Boycotting is not always the best way to stop opression. It is almost 100% ineffective against monopolys (or oligopolys). Because customers don't have much of a choice. Sure, it would be great is everyone up and stopped buying computers from all couputer retailers and built their computers and installed linux just because they don't like M$, but its not going to happen. It would also be great if they just up and stopped buying CDs, and stopped listening to the radio (controlled by RIAA), but that too will not happen. Most boycotts are ineffective. In India, it was illegal to make salt from the ocean. The people could just have boycotted salt until the British changed the laws. It might have taken forever too. But, no, instead they all simply decided to break the law because the law did not serve the public, just special interest. And that worked. Furthermore it would be very hard to get enough public support to actually make a music boycott work with how much influence the media has over people's minds. No, this war will not be won with a boycott. It will be won by hackers and by the public's outright disregard for opressive laws.
[ November 26, 2002: Message edited by: Comrade Doctor V: Linux Pusher ]
-
YAY! Doctor r0x0rz! (http://smile.gif)
-
Coorect me if I
-
this issue is quite simple to me.
boycotting means less copies are sold, which harms whoever is being boycotted.
piracy is free advertising, not harm, to the people who should be being boycotted instead of pirated.
Obviously people who pirate are reluctant to give up what they 'get' from piracy, because they know that if they boycotted instead, they wouldn't get their warez fix. sadly, they kid themselves that their piracy has the same effect as if they were boycotting.
They should take their heads from their posteriors and at least admit that they give free advertising to anybody who's stuff they pirate.
-
quote:
Originally posted by Comrade Doctor V: Linux Pusher:
Boycotting is not always the best way to stop opression. It is almost 100% ineffective against monopolys (or oligopolys). Because customers don't have much of a choice. Sure, it would be great is everyone up and stopped buying computers from all couputer retailers and built their computers and installed linux just because they don't like M$, but its not going to happen. It would also be great if they just up and stopped buying CDs, and stopped listening to the radio (controlled by RIAA), but that too will not happen. Most boycotts are ineffective.
I happen to disagree. You make it sound like Linux is not a viable alternative. If Palladium comes out and people aren't allowed the freedoms they are used to. And if those people can get those freedoms back by using Linux I think they will. You may be a correct in that it would not be a boycott because in a boycott you usually temporarily stop using a product until policies are changed. I think if people switch to Linux in a boycott of Microsoft and Palladium they will never go back, even if Microsoft changes their tune. Linux is on the verge of being capable of doing that without any M$ slipups. With the added benefit of Microsoft slipups Linux can't lose.
-
AARRGH! I can't keep up with you people! You respond too damn fast. :mad:
Ok, to respond to the "Intelectual Property" Argument going on somwhere way the hell up there:
http://www.gnutella.com/forums/proantignutes/904 (http://www.gnutella.com/forums/proantignutes/904)
-
quote:
Originally posted by Comrade Doctor V: Linux Pusher:
Boycotting is not always the best way to stop opression. It is almost 100% ineffective against monopolys (or oligopolys). Because customers don't have much of a choice. Sure, it would be great is everyone up and stopped buying computers from all couputer retailers and built their computers and installed linux just because they don't like M$, but its not going to happen. It would also be great if they just up and stopped buying CDs, and stopped listening to the radio (controlled by RIAA), but that too will not happen. Most boycotts are ineffective.
i must also respond to this.
i CANNOT abide people who advocate apathy.
if you want to be apathetic then go for it but DO NOT tell other people to be apathetic. apathy is the reason things don't change fast enough. it is the reason that most of the world is hungry and there are dozens of wars raging in the world.
The only reason that large numbers of people wouldn't use, for instance, linux is if a lot of people loudly mouthed off about how there would be no point trying to boycott a monopoly. do you see where i'm going with this? if you do not try to do something then you WILL fail to do it.
People who advocate apathy are too scared of change to admit that there could be something better. I dealt with that particular demon a long time ago and i get very frustrated with people who consistently say that there's no point trying to change things. if you really believe that then you might as well go and jump this afternoon.
-
- Standing Ovation -
-
quote:
Originally posted by Calum:
i must also respond to this.
i CANNOT abide people who advocate apathy.
if you want to be apathetic then go for it but DO NOT tell other people to be apathetic. apathy is the reason things don't change fast enough. it is the reason that most of the world is hungry and there are dozens of wars raging in the world.
The only reason that large numbers of people wouldn't use, for instance, linux is if a lot of people loudly mouthed off about how there would be no point trying to boycott a monopoly. do you see where i'm going with this? if you do not try to do something then you WILL fail to do it.
People who advocate apathy are too scared of change to admit that there could be something better. I dealt with that particular demon a long time ago and i get very frustrated with people who consistently say that there's no point trying to change things. if you really believe that then you might as well go and jump this afternoon.
WTF!?!?!?!?!?
Whilst I laud your objection to apathy, Calum, I wish you would not be so damn quick to flame people! Its good to stand up against apathy, but not good to be so radically anti-apathetic that you find apathy where it dosn't really exist!
I am not not not advocating apathy. Read my sig. I am boycotting the RIAA and have been encouraging others to do so for some time.
Did I even once say 'Don't Boycott', did I once say 'Sit down and shut up, theres nothing you can do about it.'??? No, if fact I have said nothing but the opposite. I write a long post telling people to refuse to give in to the opressive legal action by the RIAA and I get accused of being
quote:
Originally posted by Calum:
too scared of change to admit that there could be something better
WTF!?!?!?!?!?
The point I was making was that a boycott may not be enough to stop the beast. And often, boycotts do fail. I never said don't try. There are many many ways to fight opression, boycotting is only one of them. I advocate using many different means, including but not limited to, boycotting in order to stop the menace. And that is about as far from apathy as you can get! It would be foolish to assume that boycotting is the only means the public has to make their opinions heard, and even more foolish to assume that every boycott will succeed and that all other forms of resistance should be left behind.
I say, and have always said:
A: Boycott the RIAA
B: Make your opinion that the RIAAs practices are harmful to both the public and artists heard
C: Keep on file sharing, webcasting, and burning CD!
While A and B will strike crippling blows, C will be the fatal wound.
We have common enemies, lets not fight amongst ourselves.
V
-
I have to admit I got a similar impression, but must have been mostly wrong about it. I still do not agree with the file sharing, never have, even in the beginning before the big boys started whining about it. I believe you should be able to do anything with a music CD once you own it for your own personal use. That does not include burning a copy and giving it to your buddy, unless it is specifically permitted by the license. If I do not agree to the license of the people that created the music I will not listen to said music. Just as I do not use Microsoft software because I do not agree to their license.
Even if I do not agree with a law, I will not break the law, especially when I don't agree with the idiot behind the stupid license. I'll just not support him by not purchasing his product, and I will not support him by passing the product along to get others hooked on said product (either music or proprietary software, it's all the same to me). If I think the product is good enough and there is no free alternative then I will purchase said product for my enjoyment.
I think we are all against RIAA and agencies like them, but for differing reasons. I don't want my personal freedoms taken away. Things like being able to rip my CD and create OGG files to play on my personal computer, not to pass them all over the net. If it weren't for this activity there wouldn't be proprietary DRM type CD-ROMs on the horizon which will hamper my personal freedom. There would be no proprietary DRM CDs and DVDs to hamper my personal freedom. I know you don't agree with it but that's how I feel about it.
[ November 27, 2002: Message edited by: void main ]
-
There is a big difference between these two statements:
Don't boycott, it won't work.
and
Boycott, but it might not work.
Statement 1 is apathy, Statement 2 is logic.
If everyone just up and stopped using Microsoft and stopped buying RIAA CDs, and Nestle foods, and Sony equipment etc, I'd throw up my arms and celebrate. But I just don't see it happening overnight. I think boycotts are great, but I don't want to be too optimistic about their success. I want to take a realistic stance, if a bit pessimitic.
My real life example: I just moved in with my gf. I set up my computer that runs Redhat, and am teaching her to use it. She is basically computer illitearte and knows very little about the ongoing battles with the media corporations, or any of the M$'s evils. I am teaching her how to use Linux and all. But if I just all of the sudden threw up my arms and told her to stop buying CDs and Nestle foods, and Sony crap and all the rest of a long list of products from corrupt corporations, she, her family and her friends would probably think I was some kind of idealist lunatic (which I might just be). I'd much rather take things one step at a time.
Notice the Ne$tle boycott is failing. This is just one of many examples.
If all of the sudden we all stopped file sharing, the RIAA's legal action would stop, and we'd have to continue to pay 20$ for a CD. The price would probably rise to 30$ or maybe $40, $50. MP3 that you can only listen to 3 times would cost $2. Numerous things that we are able to do today would become a thing of the past. The RIAA would keep control over the industry, and independant artists would have alot of trouble getting their music out.
-
I believe that file sharing should be legal. File sharing will revolutionize music. It will allow artists to be heard even if they are unwilling to sign big company contracts. This will remove the artist's dependance on the big record labels, and will also let the public hear the music of artists without having to fork over wads of cash. File sharing and webcasting is the independant artists dream come true, and the record labels nightmare. The labels will try to stop it by any means necessary. If the means to spread music like this exists, why not use it.
File sharing is just the next step in the evolution of the distribution of music. First, all music was live, then there were records, then AM radio, then FM radio, then tapes, then CDs, and now MP3 and Ogg. The media companys tried to stop most of these. They tried to block audio tapes, and even FM radio. I believe that the labels are nothing but parasites. They suck money from artists and the public and give nothing back. Because what they give can be done by everyday people. They want to keep control of music by taking away people's ability to do that.
The fact is, the hackers will always stay one step ahead of the media giants. People have the means to file share today, and no matter how hard the corps try, they won't be able to take that away. Eventually, the RIAA will come to accept this (just as they did with casette tapes). They will take harsher and harsher measures to stop gnutella, and those very measures are what will bring support to the boycott.
How about the ave. citizen of China. They can't afford to buy CD at those prices. Now, with file sharing, they can hear the music they want to. The RIAA isn't losing any sales. The Chinese wouldn't have been able to buy the CDs anyways. Nobody gains anything by stopping the Chinese from using gnutella, but the Chinese lose out alot. And thats not right. A boycott would be meaningless in China because they can't buy the music to begin with. I'm not about to tell the Chinese to stop listening to Metallica, Led Zepplin, the Grateful Dead and Calum.
Edit: spelling
[ November 27, 2002: Message edited by: Doctor V [*fish*] ]
-
quote:
Originally posted by Tux:
- Standing Ovation -
-mild grumbling from Dr.V-
[ November 27, 2002: Message edited by: Doctor V [*fish*] ]
-
/gives ovation!
Ok first off, contempt breeds piracy. It's not just getting something free, it's having no desire for loyalty to the corporations who are in charge of everything. Whether you have real reasons for hating them, or just general copout reasons, many pirates don't feel the corps are their friend.
How do you feel towards the Linux revolution? How do you feel towards Microsoft? The Linux people have given their time, and will continue to give their time, just so you can have a free product. You can't help but love them.
How would you feel about Microsoft if they charged what they do now for Wind0ze, but it was ultra stable, fast, and the upgrade cycle was more forgiving. There was no spyware, no Palladium or product activation. Would you be so damn mad at them?
Now let's take RIAA. What if CDs cost $5, and the artists got a much larger piece of the cake then they do now, would you be so mad at RIAA?
CORPORATE HATRED BREEDS PIRACY!!!
Ok a follow up to the filesharing story.
The war continues (http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/6/28325.html)
quote:
The Danish Anti Pirat Gruppen (Anti Piracy Group) is to continue targeting Net users who swap copyright material illegally.
Confirmation that the APG is to continue its hard line comes after it issued invoices totalling 1m Danish Crowns (
-
Another like I want people to read:
The Problem with Music (http://www.negativland.com/albini.html)
I believe that this is not a war about the rights to the content, its about the means of distribution of the content.
-
That is an awesome article! So are my favorite mass market "loo-sahs" like Limp Bizkit and Eminem enslaved in such a system? Limp Bizkit I can see, but good ol' Em? (http://smile.gif)
-
quote:
Originally posted by lazygamer:
/gives ovation!
CORPORATE HATRED BREEDS PIRACY!!!
Bull shit. Corporate hate leads to not using products from said corporation. Lusers breed piracy.
-
quote:
Originally posted by void main:
Bull shit. Corporate hate leads to not using products from said corporation. Lusers breed piracy.
Word. If Windows was a great product, then I'd use it. If CDs would cost less and the artists would actually get a substantial amount of money, then I'd feel better about buying the CDs.
I own every piece of software I use - even Windows (well, I got it with a few OEM computers and laptops), Dreamweaver and Photoshop (student discounts for the last two.)
I usually don't hate the company as much as I hate their product - and if I do, then I'm not going to use their product at all, no matter the quality or the price.
-
No yah see, lack of loyalty is what causes the lack of respect for profit margins and a company's right to success. All this creates the piracy.
People who pirate don't understand the concepts of Linux or true independent artists. For example, I woulden't buy, let alone download bullshit by the Backstreet boys. That is becuase I greatly depise them. Whereas other stuff that I like, I have no feelings of loyalty towards the company. Sure im screwing the artist, but my money woulden't give him much anyways.
As a matter of fact, many artists might get NOTHING from me even if I buy their CD. Read that article Doc posted. Imagine if there was a big drop in record sales, the company woulden't let their bands disappear, those bands still make them big profits. They would simply pay them less profits and put them in debt more.
Maybe im just a pirate trying to justify my ways, or maybe I have some valid points. Im sure Doc agrees with me though. (http://smile.gif)
-
quote:
Originally posted by lazygamer:
CORPORATE HATRED BREEDS PIRACY!!!
Anyone ever heard of Afric Simone? Great musician. I was in a chat room a few months back, and some guy from hungary told me about it. Then he offered to send me a couple of MP3s. I dled them and listened to the music for the first time. Ramaya, Hafanana. I really liked the music, and it prompted me to think about buying the CDs, I'd like a hard copy. But, of course, my dislike of the RIAA prevents me from doing that. I feel that if I give money to them, it will just go to the lobbists who will try to push laws that will punish me. I'm not about to give money to people who will use it against me. But if it wasn't for the corporate hatred, I'd probably buy the CD.
As it stands I have 2 mp3s from Afric Simone. I'm already a criminal for that. I could delete them from my hard drive, and never listen to them again unless the RIAA shapes up. But that could be a long time, maybe forever. Will my not deleteing the tracks hurt anyone? No, of course not, nobody loses anything from them being on my hard drive. Will deleteing them hurt anyone? Yes, I won't be able to listen to them anymore. So why should I delete them, that would be illogical, right? Do I deserve 2 years in jail and a $20,000 fine for this?
-
And I see double standards. Why is it that when a kid dls an mp3 he is thought of as a nasty criminal who should go to jail, yet when the record companys collude, which is illegal, everyone just accepts it as natural, and ok. So, its ok for large companys to break the law to screw over billions, yet not ok for a kid to break a law that hurts noone at all?
Why has everyone clearly avoided my point about collusion? Do you know what collusion is, do you know that its a crime? Because the labels collude, artists are stuck with the same crap deals no matter what lable they go with. The labels have eliminated competition by for the artists by agreeing with eachother no to give the artists better deals. Illegal. Also they collude to all offer cd at the same high prices. This eliminates competition and screws the customers. Illegal, right? But nobody here thinks the label's executives should go to jail, suits arn't supposed to go to jail right?
Collusion is illegal. Collusion is wrong. Collusion defys capitalism. And collusion is the only reason this issue even exists!
I heard talk that the reason were are getting the DRM shoved up our asses is because of the pirates, and that they are the real bad guys, and that the content cartel is just doing whats natural, and that we should just be good and if we don't like all this just not buy the cds. --Thats Exactly What They Want You To Think!!! I wouldn't be surprised if I heard those words from Hillary Rosen itself. Whats next, will people really go to jail for reading ebooks aloud? Adobe dosn't permit their ebooks to be read aloud because of copyright. Would you guys actually support sending someone to jail for doing it?!?!?!?!?
I don't mean to offend anyone as I notice people on the forums are divided over this issue. Lets all think about this with an open mind.
-
Hmmm I didn't know that was illegal. So maybe this is why capitalism has such a bad name, because it's the equivalent of when countries like China twist around Marxism into fake communism.
Why hasn't this monopolistic grouping been sued yet though?
-
Well, I am one that believes that two wrongs do not make a right. I will do my part by not purchasing CDs or downloading ripped CDs. I will not put myself or my family in jeopardy by breaking a law, even if it is stupid. You can do your part by not purchasing CDs. But I believe you have to be partly to blame by downloading ripped CDs for the new DRM/Palladium hardware coming out, which does effects me. Together maybe things will change.
-
I agree entirely, what we have in most of the western world is really fake capitalism. I think the reason they have not been sued is because for one because they have alot of money and a lot of power, and two, nobody really know what goes on behind closed doors, it would be really hard to prove anything.
another point, the situation is rediculous. CD are being sold at likr 50-100 times what it costs to make them. I know companys need profits and all, but this is rediculous. If the lables competed against eachother CDs might cost 2 dollars or less, and the artists would be millionaris.
-
You could use that exact same arguement against cassette tapes, or even the printing press.
IMO, ripping CDs is not wrong. The world would be better off with CD ripping and file sharing than without it.
They said that the printing press was wrong.
They said that FM radio was wrong.
They said that cable TV was wrong.
They said that cassette tapes wrong.
They say that file sharing is wrong.
Each step in the list of new techs gives the public more of an ability to spread information, and every time it was fought heavily against. Society is better for having the printing press, think if those in power had their way way back when it was invented and there was no publication today. And the issue we are faced with today is no different. This new technology will benefits society, it not be stopped, and in 20 years people will all look back and think how ridiculous this file sharing offosition was.
-
[ November 28, 2002: Message edited by: void main ]
-
I don't believe I ever said that ripping CDs is wrong. After all, I am against DRM CD-ROM drives and Palladium. It prevents me from ripping CDs that I have legally purchased for my own personal use. It's distributing those ripped files to millions of other people that I believe is wrong. Correct me if I am wrong but there have been court cases in the past that have basically determined that you are allowed to make backup copies of copyrighted material for your own personal use.
Like it or not, those artists made an agreement and signed a contract with a record label. The label *is* providing a service. Sure maybe they are doing some illegal things to make higher profits. Sure they may be robbing the artists blind. That's the artists problem. If they don't like it they should pool together and start their own label and do right. Maybe the artists are happy with their agreement, in which case you are not helping/hurting the label or artist, but merely breaking a law. If the artists want their music spread via file sharing then they need to GPL their music and not sign a contract with a label.
And many artists share in the blame. Take Garth Brooks for instance (ick). He made a campaign against reselling legally purchased CDs. He said the "poor" artists suffer when you do this. That takes it a step beyond. Now that is something that I believe is TOTALLY fooked. If I pay $15 for a CD, I'm sorry, but I have the right to sell that CD for $5 if I don't like it. Garth can kiss my posterior.
Like I said, we are against the same people, just for different reasons, and I might be against a few more people than you are.
If you really feel the way you do about liking the artist and hating the record company so much then you might consider sending the artist an anonymous donation of whatever the CD cost that you "obtained". It would still be illegal but you would feel better. If you do not do this then I would have to put you in with the category that I am against.
[ November 28, 2002: Message edited by: void main ]
-
doctor v i didn't mean anything personal against you, and i wasn't flaming anybody.
when some people are talking about something on the forums and i think of something to say then i will say it. often i will quote the thing that made me think of saying it.
another thing i am a bit sick of is when people get pissed of just because somebody quotes them in their reply.
anyway, much good discussion seems to have springboarded from what i said, amongst other things so good. that's what i was after.
don't take it personally, i didn't mean to give the impression that that's how it was intended.
-
quote:
Originally posted by void main:
It's distributing those ripped files to millions of other people that I believe is wrong.
Yes; sharing is wrong. Sharing means you're a "pirate".
-
quote:
Originally posted by flap:
Yes; sharing is wrong. Sharing means you're a "pirate".
It does if what you are sharing is illegal to share. It doesn't if what you are sharing is not illegal to share (like GPL software). I don't know if you were being facetious there or not.
[ November 29, 2002: Message edited by: void main ]
-
Well I hope the sarcasm was obvious, but I don't really know what you mean by "wrong". Not doing something because you want to avoid the risk of prosecution is different from not doing it because you feel it's ethically wrong.
Unless of course you believe that it is inherently unethical to break the law, in which case I don't understand the point of view.
-
I said I believe it is wrong, as in ethically wrong. You were correct when you said it is pirating if the files you are sharing are being shared illegally. And you are correct in that they are two different things.
I believe when agreements are made between two parties and copyrights are placed on something, it is the copyright holder's right to do what he/she wants with it. If they don't want me to listen to their music without paying for it that's fine. If I like it I will pay for it. If I don't I wont.
Now there are plenty of groups out there who have not made an agreement with a label and want their music shared. Even if they have that music copyrighted they can still say it is ok to share their music, they are the copyright holder, they determine how it is distributed. There is a wealth of this type of music out there, some of it as good or better than anything you hear from a major record label. It's much like the difference between GNU software and proprietary software. I don't like Microsoft software so I choose not to purchase or use it. I like VMware so I purchased it. I use Linux which can be distributed freely. Every piece of Linux code that I am aware of has a copyright but the copyright holder's licence states that the software can be distruted/shared, and that the source code must be included with the software.
It's a two way street. I can't on one hand say it is not ok to close up GPL code and sell it without the source, breaking the license of the copyright holder. And on the other hand say it is ok to share proprietary software (or music) which breaks the proprietary software (or music) copyright holder's license. That would be extremely hypocritical.
Obviously it's more of an ethical issue with me than a legal one. I have broken many laws, in fact I once had my license taken away for too many speeding tickets. But I can sit here with a straight face and tell you I have not once in my life downloaded a pirated MP3. Maybe it's because I too am a musician and have a CD. Of course my CD is not proprietary and it can be downloaded for free off of the net. The songs on that CD are copyrighted though. And if another group were to take those songs and record them with a major label they will have a law suit on their hands. That's what copyrights are all about. To protect your right to use your work however you want. Copyrights are a good thing. Without them, people would have less incentive to create.
But hey, it's just my opinion. Opinions are like ass holes, everybody has one and they all stink.
[ November 29, 2002: Message edited by: void main ]
-
quote:
I said I believe it is wrong, as in ethically wrong.
Ethics? What's that? (http://smile.gif)
Well, I believe in stupid morals and smart morals...
-
And again, you are the reason my hardware isn't going to work, and I'll have to pay more for the stuff that makes it not work. Thanks. I can see this is just going in circles so I've made my views known, nothing more to add.
-
No Void, you didn't waste your breath. When people tell me shit, it goes to heart, unless I think they're a fuckwad(which you are not). It plants a seed, sometimes I change in time because of it. You do make good sense, but maybe im not ready to change yet.
I was merely stating my eththical viewpoint, I think of piracy and stealing in the digital form. Regret, remorse, guilt, it's not coming up dammit! (http://smile.gif)
-
I guess in my younger days I had similar view points. But I have to tell you, as I learn more about GNU and GPL I believe it a worthy cause. And I am now feeling dirty if I copy a proprietary piece of software without paying for it when there are alternatives out there. Since learning about the GNU Public License I now believe in licenses, all licenses. Some licenses I believe are outrageous (Microsoft EULA). I now have zero dependency on Microsoft. I can't tell you how good it feels. I really do feel free, I have not one bit of guilt or worry that I haven't paid for something.
The same is true to a certain extent with music. There are alternatives out there to the proprietary labels. I really do like the music of some proprietary groups who are only out to make the big bucks. The license isn't bad enough for me to boycott them yet so I pay for the album. If I can't afford it I don't get it. Again, these are just my personal current feelings.
And as I said, in my younger days I just didn't know any better and I did make a few copies on tape of other people's albums (actually this was even rare in my younger days because I liked having the professional looking cover and song list). This is similar to people doing the file sharing today. For the ones that just don't know any better I can excuse them. But for the ones that *do* know better and continue to do it then I don't think very highly of those people (or I should say I don't think very highly of their actions, most people are "mostly" good (http://smile.gif) ).