PDA

View Full Version : What's up with Grokster?



Iandefor
January 4th, 2006, 10:40 PM
Man... Grokster is getting pretty freaky. Check out www.grokster.com (http://www.grokster.com) (Warning: the link leads to Grokster's front page, which is logging the IP address of any visitors. Visit it at your own discretion). Well, I needed to know my IP address anyway, so I could work out how to access my VNC server from school :-D.

What's your take on P2P, just out of curiosity?

DaMasta
January 4th, 2006, 11:03 PM
There was a time when I downloaded all sorts of things. Then I thought, since when is stealing okay? I pay for everything now. And I'm sure some will justify stealing...but when it boils down to it, it's still stealing. Bad karma, etc, etc.

Iandefor
January 4th, 2006, 11:09 PM
I agree. Theft is theft is theft is theft. No way around it, and getting content such as may be found on P2P networks (IE, movies, music, etc) which are copyrighted is theft. P2P isn't always used to move around pirated material, but it's the primary use nowadays.

xequence
January 4th, 2006, 11:22 PM
YOUR IP ADDRESS IS ------------- AND HAS BEEN LOGGED.
Don't think you can't get caught. You are not anonymous.



Wow. Even though I know they wont do anything, you should have warned us to use a proxy or something =O




About P2P: I wouldent ever trust grokster anyway. The guy who made it was in an interview and he said he'd sell it to the RIAA if they offered enough.

And Damasta, stealing is when you take something away from someone. Not copying something from their hard drive to yours.

Kimm
January 4th, 2006, 11:25 PM
If you live in Canada I'm sure you have nothing to worry about, I doubt they take the time to make a call the government of another country just to tell them that you looked at a site they didnt like.

Same with me... swedish.

xequence
January 4th, 2006, 11:28 PM
If you live in Canada I'm sure you have nothing to worry about




Stupid liberal martin government wants to change that though...

DaMasta
January 4th, 2006, 11:34 PM
And Damasta, stealing is when you take something away from someone. Not copying something from their hard drive to yours.
This is the argument that people that love to download stuff usually gives me. And I reply with when a runner steals second, first base is still there. You don't have to remove something for it to be stolen. Not owning something that you have in your posession without approval is stealing. I've had this argument many a time. And it usually ends in name calling so I'm going to cease argument here.

majikstreet
January 4th, 2006, 11:42 PM
Iandfor i better not be getting in trouble because of you!!

ow50
January 4th, 2006, 11:58 PM
I'm glad that the P2P world is shifting away from proprietary P2P applications and company-run closed networks to free software and open networks. All the companies that have closed their networks made lousy software in the first place. This just means better quality, especially spyware- and adware-free, P2P software for the people and solutions that cannot be brought down by the Industry.

xequence
January 5th, 2006, 12:04 AM
This is the argument that people that love to download stuff usually gives me. And I reply with when a runner steals second, first base is still there. You don't have to remove something for it to be stolen. Not owning something that you have in your posession without approval is stealing. I've had this argument many a time. And it usually ends in name calling so I'm going to cease argument here.

LIEK HAHAHAZ0RZ, UR LEIK TEH DUM

And the runner thing, thats baseball. I dont understand baseball. But it seems to be that they got something new and shiny but didnt get rid of the old thing. But doesent the person on second base have to move? Thats stealing.

imagine
January 5th, 2006, 01:49 AM
There was a time when I downloaded all sorts of things. Then I thought, since when is stealing okay?
Yup.
First I was under the impression I just copied the music, so that whoever I got it from still has his music and I have an additional copy. But then the Music And Film Industry Association (MAFIA) educated me that I actually stole it, and even worse I was told I didn't steal it from my friend but directly from them! So I thought what the heck, this is not good, I better give it back. I mean, giving back voluntary what I stole doesn't make good for the theft, but it's better than nothing.
I went ahead, wrote an apology email to the MAFIA and attached my stolen MP3 and OGG files to it, so they get them back. Unfortunately the free email provider only allows about 5MB per email and a limited amount of traffic, so I'll have to create multiple email accounts at different providers and send a new email for every file. But I guess that work is my punishment for stealing the files in the first place...

viscount
January 5th, 2006, 02:40 AM
This is the argument that people that love to download stuff usually gives me. And I reply with when a runner steals second, first base is still there. You don't have to remove something for it to be stolen. Not owning something that you have in your posession without approval is stealing. I've had this argument many a time. And it usually ends in name calling so I'm going to cease argument here.

Sorry amigo, but its my stuff, and if I want to make copies and give
those copies away for free thats my business and Im not doing anything
wrong.

If I give someone a copy of something that belongs to me, then nobody can
say that I am stealing, unless they are saying that I am stealing from myself
which makes no sense.

Once I give you a copy as a gift, that copy belongs to you, you can in turn
do with your new possession what you wish, copy, destroy, listen, anything..

Dont hand me that stealing rhetoric because it just doesn't fly.

Perhaps all this digital talk has confused you, lets simplify..
Think of it like a baby pony.

If I give you a pony as a christmas gift it's yours to do with as you please.
Feed it, ride it, shoot it and make glue... it was mine, I gave it to you.
Do with it whatever you want, that includes making more baby ponys
and giving them away just as I did.

Or perhaps the first person to breed pony's owns all subsequent pony's
that have ever existed based off the original copy's?

Or maybe you are unfamiliar with the idea of giving gifts?

Either way, if you understand these concepts or not, I understand them
and so I will continue to share possessions and gifts with whomever I choose.

xequence
January 5th, 2006, 02:56 AM
Sorry amigo, but its my stuff, and if I want to make copies and give
those copies away for free thats my business and Im not doing anything
wrong.

If I give someone a copy of something that belongs to me, then nobody can
say that I am stealing, unless they are saying that I am stealing from myself
which makes no sense.

Once I give you a copy as a gift, that copy belongs to you, you can in turn
do with your new possession what you wish, copy, destroy, listen, anything..

Dont hand me that stealing rhetoric because it just doesn't fly.

Perhaps all this digital talk has confused you, lets simplify..
Think of it like a baby pony.

If I give you a pony as a christmas gift it's yours to do with as you please.
Feed it, ride it, shoot it and make glue... it was mine, I gave it to you.
Do with it whatever you want, that includes making more baby ponys
and giving them away just as I did.

Or perhaps the first person to breed pony's owns all subsequent pony's
that have ever existed based off the original copy's?

Or maybe you are unfamiliar with the idea of giving gifts?

Either way, if you understand these concepts or not, I understand them
and so I will continue to share possessions and gifts with whomever I choose.

Brillaint. Best explanation ive seen in awhile.

Iandefor
January 5th, 2006, 02:58 AM
Iandfor i better not be getting in trouble because of you!! --_--. Because your IP address has been logged, like it is at just about every other web page you visit on the internet? It's a scare tactic, nothing more. It got /.'ed, and the Grokster page is probably inundated with innocent and curious people checking out a /. link. They wouldn't be able to do anything, because half the people in those logs are probably innocent.

@all: I'll post a more clear explanation of what the link leads to, as requested by xequence.

DaMasta
January 5th, 2006, 03:53 AM
Sorry amigo, but its my stuff, and if I want to make copies and give
those copies away for free thats my business and Im not doing anything
wrong.

If I give someone a copy of something that belongs to me, then nobody can
say that I am stealing, unless they are saying that I am stealing from myself
which makes no sense.

Once I give you a copy as a gift, that copy belongs to you, you can in turn
do with your new possession what you wish, copy, destroy, listen, anything..

Dont hand me that stealing rhetoric because it just doesn't fly.

Perhaps all this digital talk has confused you, lets simplify..
Think of it like a baby pony.

If I give you a pony as a christmas gift it's yours to do with as you please.
Feed it, ride it, shoot it and make glue... it was mine, I gave it to you.
Do with it whatever you want, that includes making more baby ponys
and giving them away just as I did.

Or perhaps the first person to breed pony's owns all subsequent pony's
that have ever existed based off the original copy's?

Or maybe you are unfamiliar with the idea of giving gifts?

Either way, if you understand these concepts or not, I understand them
and so I will continue to share possessions and gifts with whomever I choose.
Like I said, people will justify stealing however they choose. Unfortunately for you, the law is correct. Now, perhaps the RIAA and MPAA goes about it in the wrong way, but it is their right to go about it. I said earlier that I was done arguing, now I really am. Thanks for the laugh at the breeding analogy though. I'll have to remember that one.

viscount
January 5th, 2006, 05:37 AM
Like I said, people will justify stealing however they choose. Unfortunately for you, the law is correct. Now, perhaps the RIAA and MPAA goes about it in the wrong way, but it is their right to go about it. I said earlier that I was done arguing, now I really am. Thanks for the laugh at the breeding analogy though. I'll have to remember that one.

The pony idea was only meant for a laugh, true, after all nobody
in their right mind would honestly say a baby pony equals a
string of 1's and 0's stored on a magnetic disk.

The pony idea was only meant to convey the concept of
gift giving and ownership.

However when you say that I am justifying stealing you are incorrect:
Actually I live in Canada, and its perfectly legal to share files here.

Which raises an interesting problem:
Since it is neither morally nor legally wrong for me to share my
possessions on the soil of the country in which I live, then why
is it considered illegal for people who live in the country but 20
minutes south of me to do the exact same thing? :confused:

Why is it that when I do this it's called "sharing" and viewed as legal but
when they do this it's called "stealing" and illegal?

Is Canada an immoral country full of rowdy thieving pirates?
Or is this whole "stealing" thing just nonsense being foistered on
the public by greedy record labels and the RIAA.

Its good to sometimes keep in mind that what is lawful is not always
right, and what is illegal is not always wrong.

I wish t'were not so, but sadly t'is true.

xequence
January 5th, 2006, 05:49 AM
To me downloading Narnia, MS Office or something off the internet is not stealing. It is copyright infringement however.

But that isnt going to stop me or most other people.

DevilsAdvocate
January 5th, 2006, 06:10 AM
Sorry amigo, but its my stuff, and if I want to make copies and give
those copies away for free thats my business and Im not doing anything
wrong.

Whose "stuff" it is is beside the point. The point is that when you buy recorded artwork, you enter into a contract. The contract is clearly stated by the copyright; i.e., they agree to sell you the work and you agree to use it for your personal use. The crime is breaking a copyright, not stealing. Morally, you are essentially just lying. If you don't agree w/ the contract and find it unfair, then you shouldn't enter into it in the first place. That would be the just way of changing a crappy system. In my opinion, you/we are all too greedy to give up our luxuries, and that's why a better solution isn't going to happen anytime soon.


If I give someone a copy of something that belongs to me, then nobody can
say that I am stealing, unless they are saying that I am stealing from myself
which makes no sense.

If you give someone a material possesion (not a copy and you are minus that posession) sure. If you are giving someone an abstraction or idea, if you created it, sure. If you give someone a copy of something that you agreed not to copy (again, buying copyrighted material means you concede that the idea is not in your to copy) then you are breaking copyright law.


Once I give you a copy as a gift, that copy belongs to you, you can in turn
do with your new possession what you wish, copy, destroy, listen, anything..

same as above.


Dont hand me that stealing rhetoric because it just doesn't fly.

I would say don't provide rationalizations for doing what you want to do.


Perhaps all this digital talk has confused you, lets simplify..
Think of it like a baby pony.

If I give you a pony as a christmas gift it's yours to do with as you please.
Feed it, ride it, shoot it and make glue... it was mine, I gave it to you.
Do with it whatever you want, that includes making more baby ponys
and giving them away just as I did.


Actually, your simplification is completely, factually, inaccurate. When you buy an animal to breed, you have to pay a higher price to the original breeder for the initial animal, and later a fee/percentage for the "seed" it produces if they are going to be used for breeding. This is also agreed upon contractually before you buy the pony/puppy/calf, etc... Your analogy would be more accurate if you contacted the record company and wanted to buy a master copy of the work, w/ known prior intent of make copies. You would then be granted a contract to do so w/ a price agreed upon and royalties. Obviously, this would cost more than the CD you buy in the store. Certainly, there are ways around both systems. But, that doesn't make it right.


Or perhaps the first person to breed pony's owns all subsequent pony's
that have ever existed based off the original copy's?

If you and your society decided that's how you want to view it, sure. Ownership is a contractual-societal construct, so ownership is whatever the given society says it wants it to be.


Either way, if you understand these concepts or not, I understand them
and so I will continue to share possessions and gifts with whomever I choose.

Well, we are only as good as our word.

ardchoille
January 5th, 2006, 06:18 AM
Iandfor i better not be getting in trouble because of you!!
since when can you get into trouble for simply viewing a webpage and then leaving the site?

DevilsAdvocate
January 5th, 2006, 06:26 AM
However when you say that I am justifying stealing you are incorrect:
Actually I live in Canada, and its perfectly legal to share files here.

Which raises an interesting problem:
Since it is neither morally nor legally wrong for me to share my
possessions on the soil of the country in which I live, then why
is it considered illegal for people who live in the country but 20
minutes south of me to do the exact same thing? :confused:

Because, Canadians as a society have agreed that Copyrighted Material is acceptable. The record companies know Canada's law regarding copyright prior to entering into contracts there. So, they've agreed to that contract.


Why is it that when I do this it's called "sharing" and viewed as legal but
when they do this it's called "stealing" and illegal?


Because here it's against the law. What is any law other than an agreed upon societal concept? Why is it legal in Iran to stone an adulteress but illegal in Canada? Are the Iranians morally and legally wrong? Why is it legal in the US to own handguns but illegal in Canada? Are we morally and legally wrong?

I think what you're reaching for is an absolute moral and legal code. Something that hasn't existed across time or culture. If you're religious, you may believe differently but, empirically, that's what we have.


Is Canada an immoral country full of rowdy thieving pirates?
Or is this whole "stealing" thing just nonsense being foistered on
the public by greedy record labels and the RIAA.


That's up to Canadians to decide. And up to the record companies to agree w/ or not.


Its good to sometimes keep in mind that what is lawful is not always
right, and what is illegal is not always wrong.


Sure, but because that platitude exists, doesn't in any way validate it's application to these issues.


I wish t'were not so, but sadly t'is true.

Jussi Kukkonen
January 5th, 2006, 08:47 AM
There was a time when I downloaded all sorts of things. Then I thought, since when is stealing okay? I pay for everything now. And I'm sure some will justify stealing...but when it boils down to it, it's still stealing. Bad karma, etc, etc.

My ogg-collection (and the rest of the contents of my HD) is legal too, but I disagree with your view on copyright.

Stealing is a no-no in pretty much any situation and society imaginable, but copyright is about balancing two "goods": (a) the incentive to create new works and (b) the ability of other people to enjoy them. There are many different ways to balance them and we shouldn't think the current one is necessarily optimal.

We need to be aware that we can change what copyright means... and that we should change it, depending on societys needs. Saying "copyright violation is theft" means that we have not understood this possibility and that we can only raise a and lower b -- which might lead to a suboptimal optimization of "overall good" a+b :)

briancurtin
January 5th, 2006, 08:59 AM
what the **** is grokster? i would check it out, but it looks like i dont want to be associated with this from the skimming and scanning ive done of these posts

Iandefor
January 5th, 2006, 09:35 AM
what the **** is grokster? i would check it out, but it looks like i dont want to be associated with this from the skimming and scanning ive done of these posts

Check Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grokster.

JimmyJazz
January 5th, 2006, 10:45 AM
don't worry no goverment in there right mind would index through the thousands of IPs logged on that sight then contact your ISP and demand names and addresses.
I'm not even sure that it is legal to gather such information without a warrent. Then they would have to actually prove you used grokster to download copyrighted material, its just not going to happen.

imagine
January 5th, 2006, 07:26 PM
The point is that when you buy recorded artwork, you enter into a contract. The contract is clearly stated by the copyright
[...]
If you and your society decided that's how you want to view it, sure.I disagree.
I am supposed to follow all laws and other rules and if I don't I may be punished. However I was never asked if I want to follow them, I just have to and there's no way out of the system. I don't claim that asking everybody would be possible, but stating that I or the majority of the people around me agreed to every rule is not true (in fact surveys show that there are many rules which the majority absolutely does not agree with). I am forced to do it.
And being forced does not mean that there is absolutely no other option. Otherwise there would always be another option, even if someone with a gun stands behind you. You could let him shoot you down.
When 90% of the music market is controlled by four companies with zero competition and they all offer the same uneven contract (which cannot be changed by me in any way and gives almost all rights to them and none to me for a ridiculous price), then I don't have an option not to sign this contract. Not listening to my music at all is not an option. So what I do is signing this contract and then move it to /dev/null.

Just as a sidenote: The above should read "what I *did*" because nowadays I get the music from AllOfMP3 (now this is a choice, an option!) and their contract is ok.


Ownership is a contractual-societal construct, so ownership is whatever the given society says it wants it to be.But today you have to distinguish between ownership of some thing and so called ownership of an idea/intellectual stuff. Music falls under the latter.

DevilsAdvocate
January 5th, 2006, 07:31 PM
I disagree.
I am supposed to follow all laws and other rules and if I don't I may be punished. However I was never asked if I want to follow them, I just have to and there's no way out of the system. I don't claim that asking everybody would be possible, but stating that I or the majority of the people around me agreed to every rule is not true (in fact surveys show that there are many rules which the majority absolutely does not agree with). I am forced to do it.
And being forced does not mean that there is absolutely no other option. Otherwise there would always be another option, even if someone with a gun stands behind you. You could let him shoot you down.
When 90% of the music market is controlled by four companies with zero competition and they all offer the same uneven contract (which cannot be changed by me in any way and gives almost all rights to them and none to me for a ridiculous price), then I don't have an option not to sign this contract. Not listening to my music at all is not an option. So what I do is signing this contract and then move it to /dev/null.

Just as a sidenote: The above should read "what I *did*" because nowadays I get the music from AllOfMP3 (now this is a choice, an option!) and their contract is ok.

But today you have to distinguish between ownership of some thing and so called ownership of an idea/intellectual stuff. Music falls under the latter.

What you say above is absurd. You state that it would be an option to let someone stand behind you with a gun and shoot, but not buying music is not an option? You are an addict to your desires...not that I'm not, I just don't lie to myself about it.

TeeAhr1
January 5th, 2006, 08:06 PM
Whose "stuff" it is is beside the point. The point is that when you buy recorded artwork, you enter into a contract.
Really? I didn't notice a EULA on my album. I thought I was buying a piece of property that was then mine to do with as I chose. If I had been informed that this was not the case, and I was instead buying a license that gave me limited rights, I certainly wouldn't have paid $15 a pop.

DevilsAdvocate
January 5th, 2006, 11:42 PM
Really? I didn't notice a EULA on my album. I thought I was buying a piece of property that was then mine to do with as I chose. If I had been informed that this was not the case, and I was instead buying a license that gave me limited rights, I certainly wouldn't have paid $15 a pop.

There is no End User's License Agreement. There is a little c w/ a circle around it, at the very least w/ the word copyright next to it.

Derek Djons
January 6th, 2006, 12:01 AM
The time that only rich people could buy a computer and load it up with tons of legal software is over. These days you can buy a computer for like $300 or cheaper. At least in The Netherlands you can :) 299 Euro. It's also possible to get a rent-free loan in many countries or delayed payment. So buying a computer isn't a capital investment anymore.

Then the software question remains. Also that isn't a problem anymore. Being a student or employee often means you can get full versions against a cheap discount price. So you don't have to spent hunderds of dollars on it.

The problem these days is that everybody knows downloading music, games and software is illegal but it's so easy to do it. And once you've started... heck, who's stopping you, right?!
I have to admit using Windows I never bought any program legally. Do I regret it? Yes and no. But I do know now that the yes part is a small factor which made me start using Linux.

kairu0
January 6th, 2006, 12:20 AM
Iandfor i better not be getting in trouble because of you!!

I'm sitting here in the dark, waiting for Big Brother to come arrest me from my Japanese apartment.

Iandefor
January 6th, 2006, 12:21 AM
I'm sitting here in the dark, waiting for Big Brother to come arrest me from my Japanese apartment. As you should be, citizen!

You're in Japan?

DevilsAdvocate
January 6th, 2006, 04:12 AM
The problem these days is that everybody knows downloading music, games and software is illegal but it's so easy to do it. And once you've started... heck, who's stopping you, right?!
I have to admit using Windows I never bought any program legally. Do I regret it? Yes and no. But I do know now that the yes part is a small factor which made me start using Linux.

Right on the money.

kairu0
January 6th, 2006, 05:19 AM
As you should be, citizen!

You're in Japan?

Yes, I am. And, no, the authorities haven't caught me yet. I think I have time to squeeze another Teletubby job in the torrent queue.

xequence
January 6th, 2006, 05:49 AM
Another thing, I think I am addicted to downloading. I HAVE to have something downloading or uploading all the time, I go crazy if I cant double click the uTorrent icon every 5 seconds to check how fast my downloads and uploads are going.

Which, really, there isnt alot to upload/download thats legal. So to fuel my addiction, I my downloads arnt the most legal.

viscount
January 6th, 2006, 07:22 AM
That would be the just way of changing a crappy system. In my opinion, you/we are all too greedy to give up our luxuries, and that's why a better solution isn't going to happen anytime soon.


Could you expand on this? Thats pretty ambiguous.



What is any law other than an agreed upon societal concept?


If laws just came out of societal needs we wouldnt see this big issue
because the truth is that "society" wants file sharing, but big companys
dont and so they pull strings with the agencys that control laws.

When was the last time "society agreed" upon a law?

Laws are set not by the "society" but by the elected officials that the people
bring to power. Unfortunately once in positions of power they often forget
the people that voted for them and spend most of their time catering
to big money.



Why is it legal in Iran to stone an adulteress but illegal in Canada? Are the Iranians morally and legally wrong?


Yep. In this case I would say they definitly are morally wrong.
As I said before, not everything that is lawful is morally upright.
Call that a platitude if you want, but I think you're just a coping
out if you do.

I bet you're going to reply something along the lines of "well its not
morally wrong for them because thats what they believe."
Please spare me.

As far as this goes into copying music or files, if someone goes
to the store and buys something it then belongs to them and if they
want to smash it to pieces or copy it, whatever, its really that simple.

This whole thing really just amounts to big corporations warping reality
according to their own glutenous world view and it's sad to see society
bending over and buying into it. Really its a testament to corporate
America's ability to brainwash its people.

Iandefor
January 6th, 2006, 10:17 AM
Yes, I am. And, no, the authorities haven't caught me yet. I think I have time to squeeze another Teletubby job in the torrent queue. Ha! Knowing that you're in Japan makes Big Brother's job that much easier. Now we just have to search every apartment in Japan.

You like Japan at all?

DevilsAdvocate
January 7th, 2006, 12:03 AM
Could you expand on this? Thats pretty ambiguous.

Yes, the honest way to combat what we consider unfair pricing would be to not buy the product, just like any other item. Just because it's easier to steal music (etc...) doesn't change the problem. What prevents us from not buying CDs, for example, that we find unfairly priced? We could simply refuse to buy them at this cost and under these conditions, which in my opinion is the just thing to do. Or, we could attempt rational acrobatics to try to justify stealing. The former approach would require the record companies to change their pricing, whereas the latter (your approach) changes? My earlier point was this: why you choose the latter option is because you have too much desire/addiction to this luxury. If we would follow the Buddha's advice, we would be better served by letting go of the desire, and therefore being able to act truly freely.


If laws just came out of societal needs we wouldnt see this big issue
because the truth is that "society" wants file sharing, but big companys
dont and so they pull strings with the agencys that control laws.
When was the last time "society agreed" upon a law?

If society "truly" wants file sharing to be legalized, why don't you act to change copyright law? It should be relatively easy to gather support for this if society "truly" wanted it to change. The fact is, like everyone else, you'll try to justify the lazy way of handling the problem.

Yes, yes, corporate involvement in government is the reason for all the worlds problems, therefore, we should all "steal this book" to thumb our noses at them. Yes, that is such an effective approach. I agree, international corporate-politics is corrupt, but I don't believeing that ourselves acting corruptly is the solution to the problem. And, I don't think Corporations are omnipotent or that our governments are absolutely corrupted. It's someplace in the middle. I do think it can be changed through the democratic process, IF the people got off of their lazy asses and did something about it. The fact is, they don't, cause they don't want to (negating your point) or are too attached to their luxuries to attempt to (my point).

And, to answer you question: I believe society mainly agrees w/ copyright law. Because, essentially copyright law is fair to the creator...the person everyone leaves out of the equation. If I made a successful album and contracted w/ a label to distribute it, I would want the copyright protected. If I simply wanted everyone to have it, I would post it as a torrent and be done w/ it.


Laws are set not by the "society" but by the elected officials that the people
bring to power. Unfortunately once in positions of power they often forget
the people that voted for them and spend most of their time catering
to big money.

How many people in society voted? How many know who their elected officials are? How to contact them? What the big issues of the day are? So, whose fault is it that the officials don't pay attention to their constituents. The fact is, these people are ELECTED and, therefore, if the society truly wanted change, it could be done. I don't blame corporatations for taking advantage of our own sloth, ignorance, and greed. That's what they do. I blame ourselves for these things.



Yep. In this case I would say they definitly are morally wrong.
As I said before, not everything that is lawful is morally upright.
Call that a platitude if you want, but I think you're just a coping
out if you do.

You're a fish in the water of your morality and don't realize their is anything outside of the water. They don't simply "believe" it as a positive trait, it is simply implicit in their society that this is the proper morality. It's not copping out, the point is whose to say what is a morally just law for everyone? You?


I bet you're going to reply something along the lines of "well its not
morally wrong for them because thats what they believe."
Please spare me.

Don't asked to be spared in the middle of an argument. That's weak. State your case if you have one.


As far as this goes into copying music or files, if someone goes
to the store and buys something it then belongs to them and if they
want to smash it to pieces or copy it, whatever, its really that simple.

This whole thing really just amounts to big corporations warping reality
according to their own glutenous world view and it's sad to see society
bending over and buying into it. Really its a testament to corporate
America's ability to brainwash its people.

It's really that simple? So the idea of the creator author of his work being compensated for that work is absolutely bankrupt? They should make one copy, be paid for it, then that copy should just be distributed? If you devoted your life to being a musician, risked more than most of us can imagine, then came up w/ a hit album, you'ld just distribute it freely? Even if you did, does that mean other people wouldn't be justified in asking for payment for their work? It's the artists who have contracted w/ the record companies, they know the terms of distribution, so they must have agreed w/ it. Otherwise, they could have just posted it.

It's really not simple or people wouldn't be debating it. Besides, this is the first time in history information can be separated from its medium so easily. It calls for a rethinking of the whole issue, I believe.

Yes, I admit it, you've got me I'm brainwashed. You Canadians obviously are immune to all of this as corporations, greed, and political abuse don't exist there.

Iandefor
January 7th, 2006, 12:12 AM
What Devilsadvocate said. As Devilsadvocate has witnessed before, I'm hardly the most eloquent person when it comes to expressing my opinion, so I'll just let him do the debating on this one :).

bootlinux
January 7th, 2006, 12:33 AM
I'm just reading the forums. Don't have a clue what Grokster is, just curious so I clicked the link and was treatened by some $#@!* with a lot more nerve then brains. There should be a law to keep me from being threaten in my own home. If this guy came to my house and said those words to my face he would be minus a few teeth.

Iandefor
January 7th, 2006, 12:38 AM
I'm just reading the forums. Don't have a clue what Grokster is, just curious so I clicked the link and was treatened by some $#@!* with a lot more nerve then brains. There should be a law to keep me from being threaten in my own home. If this guy came to my house and said those words to my face he would be minus a few teeth. I left a warning up. Was that not apparent enough? I'm not being rude, by the way. I'm sincere here.

Yeah, Grokster's just trying to be all scary.

Derek Djons
January 7th, 2006, 12:40 AM
I'm just reading the forums. Don't have a clue what Grokster is, just curious so I clicked the link and was treatened by some $#@!* with a lot more nerve then brains. There should be a law to keep me from being threaten in my own home. If this guy came to my house and said those words to my face he would be minus a few teeth.

Welcome to the world of greedy corporations which always try to be as customer friendly as possible.

It makes me remind that actually a part of my downloading was because I just hated the way these organisations address information towards you.

kairu0
January 7th, 2006, 01:00 AM
Ha! Knowing that you're in Japan makes Big Brother's job that much easier. Now we just have to search every apartment in Japan.

Easier said than done. You'll have to search all 10 of them!


You like Japan at all?

To keep this on topic, I'll pretend that "p2p" was in that question and comment on Japanese p2p.

I often search for Japanese files on p2p networks. And, to make this clear, I'm not talking about fan anime or hentai comics or anything like that; I mean live-action programs, documents, music, etc. The problem, though, is that Japanese people tend to use Winny (read "poopoosoft") for serious filesharing. Winny is a silly network that only works with Winny software, which is only available for Windows and I have never been able to run it through Wine. Furthermore, Winny has the second most poorly designed GUI in history (#1 is Windows Media Player.)

So, I don't particularly like Japanese p2p. I wish that more people would use Bittorrent. Bittorrent isn't efficient, but I like it more than I ever liked Gnutella, Napster, or Iandefor :-P

Iandefor
January 7th, 2006, 01:08 AM
Easier said than done. You'll have to search all 10 of them!

Ten?! Ah, well, what's a little illegal filesharing here and there?



Bittorrent isn't efficient, but I like it more than I ever liked Gnutella, Napster, or Iandefor :-P *Sniffle* now you've hurt my feelings... :-D

kairu0
January 7th, 2006, 05:36 AM
*Sniffle* now you've hurt my feelings... :-D

P2P is all about hurt feelings. Corporate record label giants cry in their sleep. Sobbing mothers dream of their children pounding license plates. Rural ISP technicians are thrown on the streets after their customer's move on to larger, faster Internet providers to meet bandwidth pressures...oh, hey! I finally got the DVDRip of Old Yeller!

Iandefor
January 7th, 2006, 06:17 AM
P2P is all about hurt feelings. Corporate record label giants cry in their sleep. Sobbing mothers dream of their children pounding license plates. Rural ISP technicians are thrown on the streets after their customer's move on to larger, faster Internet providers to meet bandwidth pressures And women and children will wail and gnash their teeth! Sorry, couldn't resist :).

kairu0
January 7th, 2006, 07:36 AM
There is an anti-piracy advertisement that runs before every film in the theatres here in Japan. A woman, whose face says, "I just found out Santa was a lie," is in the center, and as the camera slowly zooms in, she begins to sniffle and cry metallic tears. It ends with something like, "I won't buy bootlegs. I won't sell bootlegs. I won't watch bootlegs."

The message is painfully obvious: it's okay to P2P so long as you don't buy, sell, or watch bootlegged reruns of Alf.

Iandefor
January 7th, 2006, 07:42 AM
There is an anti-piracy advertisement that runs before every film in the theatres here in Japan. A woman, whose face says, "I just found out Santa was a lie," is in the center, and as the camera slowly zooms in, she begins to sniffle and cry metallic tears. It ends with something like, "I won't buy bootlegs. I won't sell bootlegs. I won't watch bootlegs."

The message is painfully obvious: it's okay to P2P so long as you don't buy, sell, or watch bootlegged reruns of Alf. lol... funny. There's an anti-piracy advert here in the US that likens downloading a copyrighted movie to stealing a car or a purse.

kairu0
January 7th, 2006, 07:49 AM
lol... funny. There's an anti-piracy advert here in the US that likens downloading a copyrighted movie to stealing a car or a purse.

It's more like stealing a car from the GM plant or an empty purse from the shelf at Target. They can't come out and admit that the greatest victim is is a dislocated, face-less, third-party corporation. Then again, if they did make an advertisement that said that, they'd be pretty stupid.

ow50
January 7th, 2006, 09:49 AM
There is an anti-piracy advertisement that runs before every film in the theatres here in Japan.
We had an advertisement running in Finnish threaters that said "Downloading is a crime". That was at the time when downloading copyrighted material off P2P was still legal.

kairu0
January 8th, 2006, 12:12 AM
We had an advertisement running in Finnish threaters that said "Downloading is a crime". That was at the time when downloading copyrighted material off P2P was still legal.

When did P2P become illegal in your country?

xequence
January 8th, 2006, 12:17 AM
Bittorrent isn't efficient, but I like it more than I ever liked Gnutella, Napster, or Iandefor

Try saying bittorent isnt efficient after uploading a torrent and seeing this:

Created by xequence 23 days and 20 hours ago
Peers: 34 seeders, 43 leechers - 77 total.

With almost 3000 people who have completed it, and its 250mb.

Sure, you think its not efficient because it doesent have good speeds often, but when you look at the end picture here, it works :)

kairu0
January 8th, 2006, 12:23 AM
Sure, you think its not efficient because it doesent have good speeds often, but when you look at the end picture here, it works :)

Whoa, I'm not complaining about download speeds; I'm just saying that with high decentralization the bittorrent system is not as efficient as it could be. Plus, I admire that the 2,3,4-day download queues *cough* EMULE *cough* aren't there in Bittorrent.

Iandefor
January 8th, 2006, 12:29 AM
Whoa, I'm not complaining about download speeds; I'm just saying that with high decentralization the bittorrent system is not as efficient as it could be. Plus, I admire that the 2,3,4-day download queues *cough* EMULE *cough* aren't there in Bittorrent. Yup. I hate those download queues, which is why I don't use Emule. I waited twenty minutes for a download to start, then gave up.

kairu0
January 8th, 2006, 02:16 AM
Yup. I hate those download queues, which is why I don't use Emule. I waited twenty minutes for a download to start, then gave up.

Our impatience drives us to use Bittorrent.

Iandefor
January 8th, 2006, 02:43 AM
Bittorrent freaks out on my computer. I reluctantly use Limewire on the occasion I download things.

kairu0
January 8th, 2006, 02:53 AM
Bittorrent freaks out on my computer. I reluctantly use Limewire on the occasion I download things.

Expound on "freaks out."

Iandefor
January 8th, 2006, 02:59 AM
Nothing too special. It consistently times out when connecting to peers, and even if it doesn't time out, the download speeds are amazingly slow. So I don't bother with making it work. Limewire moves fast enough for me and the "audio" section, which I occasionally use to get more of a group's work to see if I like them or not, doesn't return anything bad for me.

ow50
January 8th, 2006, 04:53 AM
When did P2P become illegal in your country?
About a week ago, January 1. 2006. The law was passed last year and it was discussed here as well.
http://www.ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?t=72188

To be exact, P2P is not illegal, but downloading copyrighted material off P2P networks became illegal. Before only uploading was illegal.


Yup. I hate those download queues, which is why I don't use Emule.
Well, edonkey2000 network's greatest strength is in its selection. Slow speed is a side-effect. To me ed2k is like the greatest media library that exists, while torrents are like the top 40 shelf at your local record/game/whatever store.

mstlyevil
January 8th, 2006, 04:55 AM
You have heard the old saying that the internet is for porn. I say that EMule is for porn.

Iandefor
January 8th, 2006, 04:58 AM
Well, edonkey2000 network's greatest strength is in its selection. Slow speed is a side-effect. To me ed2k is like the greatest media library that exists, while torrents are like the top 40 shelf at your local record/game/whatever store. It is amazing, the amount of content to be found on Emule, it's just that I don't think it's worth it to wait a day or two just so I can check out Haiku D'etat to see if they're any good if I can get the songs via Limewire in about a minute.

xequence
January 8th, 2006, 05:35 AM
Did anyone accually use grokster before it got shut down? Ive never heard anyone say theyve accually used it.

Iandefor
January 8th, 2006, 05:54 AM
I didn't.

viscount
January 9th, 2006, 03:25 AM
Good for you for having so much time that you can do nice point by point
comparisons of anything I write and therefore prove that *everything* I
write is wrong or stupid in a pleasant point by point refutation.

Copius amounts of free time are a luxury I do not have and so dont expect
such precise replys from this end.

Society does want file sharing. Dont argue the obvious.

(But then again, thats probably to much to ask from someone like you
because acording to you individuals are incapable of judging their ass from a
hole in the ground, morality wise, but whatever. Go jump off a bridge, there is
no bridge, honest.)

Politians get kicked out again and again because they dont listen they dont keep
their promises and instead they cater to big money (There are also other
reasons but I dont have all day). I'm not even going to get started on why
corporations are evil or how democracy uterly fails.

One thing Im not going to let go of is:
Nobody is saying original artists should not be compensated.

What I am saying:
What people do with their own property is their own business.

Those are not mutually exclusive concepts, that's how earth has
functioned since the very beginning of society until today.

Music labels saw that the personal computer was adding an element of
instability to their otherwise complete control of the music industry because
suddenly people could go and buy CD's then take them home and burn a copy
to share with friends. That is a good thing, and something I feel should be
permitted under fairuse.

However while the Music companys scrambled to create laws to regain their
vice like situation of total control, something else has happened called iTunes.

Apple has made a very good business out of iTunes, they saw what the people
wanted and gave it to them, and charged a reasonable price.

Ask yourself why does a 10 cent CD cost $30 dollars? If the music industry
started to charge $20 for 10 CD's they would probably sell 100x as many CD's
and probably make 2x or 3x what they are currently making in profits, why?
Because people would see actual "value" in their purchase.

Currently, the "value" just isnt there for spending $30 for single CD when I can
go and buy a song for $1 from iTunes. Oh, and yes, for all your accusations I
guess someone should have told you earlier that I dont download songs from
the internet enless its from iTunes, I dont even copy CD's that I own. I even
pay for software, which includes OSS for me. I've even made a few voluntary
donations to projects that I think are cool. All this file-sharing stuff is just
"theoretical" for me, but even though I dont do it, it is still something I strongly
believe in.

ps. Dont try to lecture on Buddha.



deleted...

BSDFreak
January 9th, 2006, 03:37 AM
What I am saying:
What people do with their own property is their own business.



I agree, in this case the intellectual property belongs to the copyright holder.

In the case of software you don't buy the actual software, what you buy is a licence that entitles you to use the software in the manner described in the licence, not the software itself.

In the case of music you don't really buy the music, you buy the right to use the recording of that music in the copy you have bought in the manner described in the copyright laws in your country. IOW, yes, you own the cd, as an object you may do whatever you like with it, you do not own the information on it though but you have the right to use it in accordance to the licence/copyright.

viscount
January 9th, 2006, 07:32 AM
I just dont get that view. Sorry.

This is all just about greed. No, not the greed of the person who
bought the software or music.. greed of the people who sell the
software and music.

Frankly Im amazed that so many people here in a Linux forum
just dont seem to "get" fair use. It seems to me that in todays climate
"freedom" is a bit of a dead albatross.

So what if someone wants to change the format of their CD's, or copy software
that they've purchased?

I understand what you're saying, basically you say its like buying a book and
the seller saying "you own the paper, but not the words so if you try to
write out a copy of the words in this book or scan them into your computer
you're breaking the agreement we've made when we sell the book to you".

Yeah, I get it, I understand it, but I just dont agree.

Ok, this made me to start thinking, so I grabed two completely random
books off my shelf and checked to see what exactly the copyright says
for each of them and I got two _very_ different copyright.

'Book A' is a history book (ianal) but it appears that the copyright says
the book may not be lent, sold, or distributed in any form other than that in
which it appears. This seems to indicate that if someone were to make an exact
duplicate of the book that they could at least use it for personal use.
Interesting.

'Book B' is much more strait forward and says the book may not be reproduced
in any way (electronic or otherwise) without the express permission of the author.

This makes me kind of worried because just like with software code I could quite
easily devote myself to memorizing the contents of both of these books, and
after reading them they become part of my mind, forever imprinted on
my neurons. Isnt that a form of duplication?

What happens when I must write papers pertaining to subjects that I've read
from these books as well as others? Im violating the copyrights by duplicating
any of the information in book B, and enless I perfectly copy Book A I am also
violating its copyrights.

Anyway, I still believe they are "my" books despite the copyrights. I own them
body and soul and if I want to burn them, or read them into my scanner so I
can take them with me in my pda, or whatever, thats my business.

BSDFreak
January 9th, 2006, 08:24 AM
I just dont get that view. Sorry.

It's not a "view" by using the software you are agreeing to that, it's in the EULA and piracy isn't a grey area, it's illegal, it's theft of intellectual property, you don't buy the software, read the EULA, you buy the right to use it.


So what if someone wants to change the format of their CD's, or copy software
that they've purchased?

You can make as many backup copies as you like and you may transform it into whatever format you wish, it's covered under "fair use", what you may not do is to distribute it.


This is all just about greed. No, not the greed of the person who
bought the software or music.. greed of the people who sell the
software and music.

It's not greedy to want to be paid for your work if you are the developer and it's not greedy to want money for the use product if you are selling that.

If i'm a developer selling my product and you pirate it you are taking away my paycheck, is it greedy of me to want to be paid for my work? Is everyone who works for money greedy or is it just developers that work for money that are greedy?


-----------------


This makes me kind of worried because just like with software code I could quite
easily devote myself to memorizing the contents of both of these books, and
after reading them they become part of my mind, forever imprinted on
my neurons. Isnt that a form of duplication?

If you have viewed the software code you are either a developer for the company and you'll have to follow the rules of your contract, or you have gained access to the code illegaly.


What happens when I must write papers pertaining to subjects that I've read
from these books as well as others? Im violating the copyrights by duplicating
any of the information in book B, and enless I perfectly copy Book A I am also
violating its copyrights.

The "fair use" exemption to (U.S.) copyright law was created to allow things such as commentary, parody, news reporting, research and education about copyrighted works without the permission of the author. That's important so that copyright law doesn't block your freedom to express your own works -- only the ability to express other people's. Intent, and damage to the commercial value of the work are important considerations. Are you reproducing an article from the New York Times because you needed to in order to criticise the quality of the New York Times, or because you couldn't find time to write your own story, or didn't want your readers to have to register at the New York Times web site? The first is probably fair use, the others probably aren't.

Fair use is usually a short excerpt and almost always attributed. (One should not use much more of the work than is needed to make the commentary.) It should not harm the commercial value of the work -- in the sense of people no longer needing to buy it (which is another reason why reproduction of the entire work is a problem.)

Note that most inclusion of text in followups and replies is for commentary, and it doesn't damage the commercial value of the original posting (if it has any) and as such it is almost surely fair use. Fair use isn't an exact doctrine, though. The court decides if the right to comment overrides the copyright on an individual basis in each case. There have been cases that go beyond the bounds of what I say above, but in general they don't apply to the typical net misclaim of fair use.

The "fair use" concept varies from country to country, and has different names (such as "fair dealing" in Canada) and other limitations outside the USA.

Facts and ideas can't be copyrighted, but their expression and structure can. You can always write the facts in your own wordsthough


Anyway, I still believe they are "my" books despite the copyrights. I own them
body and soul and if I want to burn them, or read them into my scanner so I
can take them with me in my pda, or whatever, thats my business.

You own the books, not the texts, you can't redistribute the text without breaking the law, you can sell the book or do whatever you want with the paper itself though. Same thing with a CD you buy, you can do what you want with the CD, what you can't do (legally) is to distribute the information that the CD contains.

viscount
January 9th, 2006, 12:13 PM
What do you do for a living? I smell a law student.
But it's nice to see a reply from someone who
actually knows the laws in question, or at least
knows where to go find them.


You can make as many backup copies as you like and you may transform it into whatever format you wish, it's covered under "fair use", what you may not do is to distribute it.

Then Im satisfied. Thats all I want and thats all I would ever need to do.



It's not greedy to want to be paid for your work if you are the developer and it's not greedy to want money for the use product if you are selling that.

I never said artists shouldnt be compensated. When I said the ones making
the software and music are greedy I was refering to large corporations and
large record labels, not to indie artists or regular developers.

Big labels often go after any infarction no matter how minor, on the other hand
artists often do give away songs for free because #1 it makes fans happy,
and #2 it helps to promote their music.

Same goes for corporations, quite often independant or even average sized
companys will give away individual copys of their software, but large corporations
tend to go after every percieved threat to their IP with insane
litigation, see SCO for details.




Facts and ideas can't be copyrighted, but their expression and structure can. You can always write the facts in your own wordsthough

My "own" words? Do I have to start inventing new words and new ways
to use them? Hasn't just about everything that can possibly be said
already been said (and probably copyrighted) by now?
I'm definitly no Shakespear, but even he had to borrow now and then.



You own the books, not the texts, you can't redistribute the text without breaking the law, you can sell the book or do whatever you want with the paper itself though. Same thing with a CD you buy, you can do what you want with the CD, what you can't do (legally) is to distribute the information that the CD contains.
What if I want to print out a chapter of a book that I have to give
to my little daughter to read with her chocolate covered fingers?
Is that redistribution? Is daddy going to jail?

BSDFreak
January 9th, 2006, 01:47 PM
What do you do for a living? I smell a law student.
But it's nice to see a reply from someone who
actually knows the laws in question, or at least
knows where to go find them.

Haha, no, far from it, i'm actually a pro bodybuilder for a living. ;)



Then Im satisfied. Thats all I want and thats all I would ever need to do.

When they try to take that right away from you, i'll join you on the barricades.


I never said artists shouldnt be compensated. When I said the ones making
the software and music are greedy I was refering to large corporations and
large record labels, not to indie artists or regular developers.

Big corporations or small corporations do the same thing, they make as much money as they can, since they are profit driven it's their purpose, to want money when they sell a product is fairly natural, without it their purpose would be nil. In a perfect world the market polices itself, in our non perfect world the governments police the market. (which is why every successful nation is a mixed economy, including the US)


Big labels often go after any infarction no matter how minor, on the other hand
artists often do give away songs for free because #1 it makes fans happy,
and #2 it helps to promote their music.

While true, as long as they have the law on their side there isn't much you can do about it, if you want to blame it on anyone, blame it on those who wrote the law.


Same goes for corporations, quite often independant or even average sized
companys will give away individual copys of their software, but large corporations
tend to go after every percieved threat to their IP with insane
litigation, see SCO for details.

AFAIK the company that has given away most software, both value wise and by the number is MS. Go to a convention, pick up a copy of 2003 enterprise edition, MSSQL enterprise server, office and so on.




My "own" words? Do I have to start inventing new words and new ways
to use them? Hasn't just about everything that can possibly be said
already been said (and probably copyrighted) by now?
I'm definitly no Shakespear, but even he had to borrow now and then.

Your own words as in not repeating someone elses words, word for word and sentence for sentence, see fair use. ;)



What if I want to print out a chapter of a book that I have to give
to my little daughter to read with her chocolate covered fingers?
Is that redistribution? Is daddy going to jail?

No, that is covered by fair use also.

Actually, fair use is pretty logical, if it seems silly that it would be illegal, then it's most probably covered under fair use. ;)

viscount
January 13th, 2006, 07:16 AM
Taken from http://lxer.com/module/newswire/view/51735/index.html



Teron writes: I recently rented the film Aliens vs. Predator.
Haven't watched it yet, don't know if it's crap or not.
But, when I put the DVD to my PS2 to watch it, up jumps a commercial.
It was that commercial that made me write this.

"You wouldn't steal this, you wouldn't steal that. You wouldn't steal a movie, right? Movie piracy is stealing. Stealing is against the law. Piracy is a crime."

Now, let's move to a broader scale than just movies. Let's expand to music and computer software. Both have the same basic setup as the movie business.

So, on the other side of the fence are the thieves, who deprive an industry of the profits it deserves. So, what's on the other side?

An industry that gives jackshit of it's customers and wants to deprive them of freedom (Trusted Platform Modules, DRM, and gods alone know what else).
An industry that cares little for anything that's not called "money".
Hell, they even break the law to ensure that their products couldn't possibly be used accordingly to the "Fair Use" clauses in most copyright laws. Prime example being the Sony BMG XCP-DRM scandal.

Now, I don't want to steal. Nor do I want to break the law.
But, even more important than that, I don't want to give up my freedom. So, what's the solution? DRM? Trusted Platform Modules? No chance in hell. Piratism? No, unless someone finds a way to turn my morals upside down.

Point is, a "do-not-circumvent-copy-protection" law was recently passed here in Finland, which'd essentially make creating a personal backup, for example, illegal. I'm already frustrated as hell because a CD record of a band's live performance is copy controlled. Sure, I can somewhat circumvent the DRM by using dBpowerAMP Music Converter and telling it to read TOCs like a normal CD player, but I still lose the first two songs on both discs. Hello, Virgin, I BOUGHT THIS THING TO LISTEN TO IT. THERE'S NO EULA, SO I TECHNICALLY OWN THE DAMN THING.

Now, Why can't I do what I want with my property?

Should I carry a CD player with me just to play that specific disc, when, in all sensibility, and by the letter of the Finnish law (before that idiotic law was passed), I should be allowed to make a couple electronic copies (iPod+own computer) for my own, personal use? I don't think so.

So, my options are to either side with the criminals, or to side with the other criminals. Where's the third side of the fence, where things make sense? In the movie world, nowhere. In the music world, there's some, but in rare places. In the software world? the F/OSS movements seem to be filling the spot.

Thank you for creating a third side of the fence - even if it only stretches for a part of the way.

BSDFreak
January 13th, 2006, 07:50 AM
Teron writes: I recently rented the film Aliens vs. Predator.
Haven't watched it yet, don't know if it's crap or not.
But, when I put the DVD to my PS2 to watch it, up jumps a commercial.
It was that commercial that made me write this.

"You wouldn't steal this, you wouldn't steal that. You wouldn't steal a movie, right? Movie piracy is stealing. Stealing is against the law. Piracy is a crime."

Now, let's move to a broader scale than just movies. Let's expand to music and computer software. Both have the same basic setup as the movie business.

So, on the other side of the fence are the thieves, who deprive an industry of the profits it deserves. So, what's on the other side?

An industry that gives jackshit of it's customers and wants to deprive them of freedom (Trusted Platform Modules, DRM, and gods alone know what else).
An industry that cares little for anything that's not called "money".
Hell, they even break the law to ensure that their products couldn't possibly be used accordingly to the "Fair Use" clauses in most copyright laws. Prime example being the Sony BMG XCP-DRM scandal.

Heh, without piracy, would there be any NEED for DRM? Put the blame where the blame is due, plame the damn thieving pirates.


Now, I don't want to steal. Nor do I want to break the law.
But, even more important than that, I don't want to give up my freedom. So, what's the solution? DRM? Trusted Platform Modules? No chance in hell. Piratism? No, unless someone finds a way to turn my morals upside down.

Point is, a "do-not-circumvent-copy-protection" law was recently passed here in Finland, which'd essentially make creating a personal backup, for example, illegal. I'm already frustrated as hell because a CD record of a band's live performance is copy controlled. Sure, I can somewhat circumvent the DRM by using dBpowerAMP Music Converter and telling it to read TOCs like a normal CD player, but I still lose the first two songs on both discs. Hello, Virgin, I BOUGHT THIS THING TO LISTEN TO IT. THERE'S NO EULA, SO I TECHNICALLY OWN THE DAMN THING.

You own the physical cd, not the information it contains. There IS a note of the DRM on the copy of the CD, visible for you to read, by buying it you enter a contract to follow that.


Now, Why can't I do what I want with my property?

You can.


Should I carry a CD player with me just to play that specific disc, when, in all sensibility, and by the letter of the Finnish law (before that idiotic law was passed), I should be allowed to make a couple electronic copies (iPod+own computer) for my own, personal use? I don't think so.

You bought it and agreed to the rules, quite whining, here's a novel idea, don't support people whos practices you disagree with. Don't buy their products. (don't steal them either)


So, my options are to either side with the criminals, or to side with the other criminals. Where's the third side of the fence, where things make sense? In the movie world, nowhere. In the music world, there's some, but in rare places. In the software world? the F/OSS movements seem to be filling the spot.

Thank you for creating a third side of the fence - even if it only stretches for a part of the way.

Yet users such as this one will whine forever in the FOSS forums and eventually go back to Windows, he doesn't want to adapt or contribute, he wants the world to work to his liking and if it doesn't, it's not his fault, it's the worlds fault.

That said, Finland adopting the EUCD law is a big let down (it is not a sane law), it is, however, so vague that it will take a decade and plenty of court cases before anyone really knows what it entails.

STILL, the blame for all of this, including the right to make your own backup copies lies with the thieving pirates, without them none of this would have happened.

Iandefor
January 13th, 2006, 08:09 AM
Taken from http://lxer.com/module/newswire/view/51735/index.html Interesting. It brings up a valid point, which is: how much is our freedom being eaten up by "The Industry" (Entertainment industry, in general, specifically, music and movie)? There are certainly provisions under the terms of fair use in the US for making a backup copy of a work you own, but is it really fair to deprive a person of the right to retrieve a copy of a work they own from someone else if their own copy gets destroyed? If I own a film, and can't make backups of it because of DRM, and can't get a copy from the P2P networks because they've all been shut down, what is my only recourse if it gets destroyed, lost or stolen? Buying it again. Paying for a work I've already paid for, if my copy's been rendered unusable to me, is hardly fair. So, I guess there is a use for P2P, but there's a big difference between getting a copy of "Who is Cletis Tout?" from a P2P network because 10 year old Timmy stuck my copy in the microwave, and getting that same copy from a P2P network because I'm too cheap to reimburse the copyright holders for their work. Then again, if I make a backup copy of my DVD, I'm violating the DMCA and can be prosecuted. Just some thoughts.

DevilsAdvocate
January 13th, 2006, 08:31 AM
Good for you for having so much time that you can do nice point by point
comparisons of anything I write and therefore prove that *everything* I
write is wrong or stupid in a pleasant point by point refutation.

I guess I should ramble on repeatedly returning to the same tired point I keep making over and over; e.g., "I don't like this, it's unfair, I don't think it's right, I believe it's wrong, etc...." Is that how a person without "copious amounts of free time" responds?


Copius amounts of free time are a luxury I do not have and so dont expect
such precise replys from this end.

I don't expect precise replies, whether you had all the time in the world or not.


Society does want file sharing. Dont argue the obvious.

I think what you meant was, don't argue against the obvious. So, all that is obvious is true? Or all that is obvious to you? Should we just bow to your opinion then?


(But then again, thats probably to much to ask from someone like you
because acording to you individuals are incapable of judging their ass from a
hole in the ground, morality wise, but whatever. Go jump off a bridge, there is
no bridge, honest.)

Do you think before you write? Can you read? Please explain where I implied any of what you say I have implied? Please explain where any of what you say follows from what you say prior to it?


Politians get kicked out again and again because they dont listen they dont keep
their promises and instead they cater to big money (There are also other
reasons but I dont have all day). I'm not even going to get started on why
corporations are evil or how democracy uterly fails.

Politicians? What politicians? All politicians get kicked out again and again? All politicians cater to big money? Now we're bringing evil into this? Why not just say God told you all of this and be done with it.


One thing Im not going to let go of is:
Nobody is saying original artists should not be compensated.

What I am saying:
What people do with their own property is their own business.

Okay?


Those are not mutually exclusive concepts, that's how earth has
functioned since the very beginning of society until today.

I'm actually laughing now. Maybe if I put that in bold it will seem to have some logical connection to what you're saying. Can you explain how 'the beginning of society' and 'the earth' functioned w/ the concepts of property and artistic compensation? Can you explain where I argued that artistic compensation and property are 'mutually contradictory.' Could you please equivocate on the meaning of property a little more!


Music labels saw that the personal computer was adding an element of
instability to their otherwise complete control of the music industry because
suddenly people could go and buy CD's then take them home and burn a copy
to share with friends. That is a good thing, and something I feel should be
permitted under fairuse.

Right, right: you're arguement again...I think it's a good thing, therefore it should be so.


However while the Music companys scrambled to create laws to regain their
vice like situation of total control, something else has happened called iTunes.

OMG. How are iTunes, something paid for and licensed, in anyway relevant to pirated music?


Ask yourself why does a 10 cent CD cost $30 dollars?

Because that's what the market has valued that CD at; i.e., that's what people are willing to pay. Why is anything priced at anything? Market value. Or is it some conservative-capitalist-corporate-alien conspiracy?


If the music industry
started to charge $20 for 10 CD's they would probably sell 100x as many CD's
and probably make 2x or 3x what they are currently making in profits, why?
Because people would see actual "value" in their purchase.

The music industry is charging the exact amount that will maximize their profits. No more and no less. Think about it. If people are willing to pay $30 for 1 CD, why give them 10 CDs for less money? You believe CD sales will increase if prices drop as you lay out, and that will make up for the loss in per-item profit? Let's say a CD costs $1 to make. Sell one for $30 and your profit is $29. Sell 10 for $20 and your profit is $10. So, to match the profit of the former, you have to sell almost 3x as many items using the latter scheme. Given that this market is already saturated, it is unlikely that this price scheme will result in 3x the sales. You can turn all of this into formulas and determine the best profit-price ratio, which is what professional economists who work for these companies do and have done. That's not to say that the market can't or won't change, but right now that's how it works out.


Currently, the "value" just isnt there for spending $30 for single CD when I can
go and buy a song for $1 from iTunes. Oh, and yes, for all your accusations I
guess someone should have told you earlier that I dont download songs from
the internet enless its from iTunes, I dont even copy CD's that I own. I even
pay for software, which includes OSS for me. I've even made a few voluntary
donations to projects that I think are cool. All this file-sharing stuff is just
"theoretical" for me, but even though I dont do it, it is still something I strongly
believe in.

Maybe in Canada you pay $30 USD for a CD, but in the US a CD rarely costs more than $15. At a dollar a song, 15 songs from iTunes would be the equivalent. Actually, we get charged tax on that 99cents, which makes it less than 15 songs. In any case, it's not in any way a bargain. It works out to be about the same either way...if Album A has X number of songs, if the price of the CD is more than X dollars, iTunes is a bargain and vice-versa. Maybe $30 dollars is Canadian?

I do pirate!


ps. Dont try to lecture on Buddha.

"If you see the Buddha on the road, kill him."

Iandefor
January 13th, 2006, 08:33 AM
"If you see the Buddha on the road, kill him."
I think it would be valuable to note that this is a Zen saying... not necessarily representative of Buddhism as a whole.

viscount
January 13th, 2006, 09:48 AM
That said, Finland adopting the EUCD law is a big let down (it is not a sane law), it is, however, so vague that it will take a decade and plenty of court cases before anyone really knows what it entails.


You said you would join me in the trenches if they took away "fair use" which is basically what it sounds like they've done. Lets go brotha! To arms, to battle!

err.. doesnt sound from your recent post that you're loading beans into the bunker just yet, and I dont really blame you for that, but instead of blaming the guy who wrote the post for the ****** state of affairs in finland (which is exactly what you wrote sounded like to me) maybe you should try blaming the *real* dirty pirates.

I've been to china, you've probably been there too, and so we both know how common it is to buy $1 new release dvd's. Every street corner granny is selling them, i **** you not. Those are the people that are causing all this shite, NOT the person who wrote that article.

Those people definitly arent just in China, they exist in every nook and cranny around the globe and THEY are the real problem.

The writer probably lives in finland for all we know, and just saw his fair use taken away, how about you cut him some slack.

viscount
January 13th, 2006, 09:53 AM
blah blah blah

Whatever chuckle head.

BSDFreak
January 13th, 2006, 10:31 AM
Interesting. It brings up a valid point, which is: how much is our freedom being eaten up by "The Industry" (Entertainment industry, in general, specifically, music and movie)?

None what so ever, you are perfectly free to not buy products if you do not agree with the licence you'll have to follow to use them.

BSDFreak
January 13th, 2006, 10:40 AM
You said you would join me in the trenches if they took away "fair use" which is basically what it sounds like they've done. Lets go brotha! To arms, to battle!

I'm way ahead of you bro, i've been protesting EUCD since day one, i have donated for the cause too.


err.. doesnt sound from your recent post that you're loading beans into the bunker just yet, and I dont really blame you for that, but instead of blaming the guy who wrote the post for the ****** state of affairs in finland (which is exactly what you wrote sounded like to me) maybe you should try blaming the *real* dirty pirates.

Seriously, you think the industri comes up with this crap to annoy it's customers? It does cost them money to implement stuff like this. If it weren't for the dishonest people it wouldn't exist.


I've been to china, you've probably been there too, and so we both know how common it is to buy $1 new release dvd's. Every street corner granny is selling them, i **** you not. Those are the people that are causing all this shite, NOT the person who wrote that article.

Never said it was the person in that article, he actually doesn't want to be a pirate, i'm talking about the people who pirate everything, there are those running proprietary software worth $10k without paying and they believe it is a-ok to steal that software, it's because of idiots like them the rest of us get our rights to fair use taken away.


Those people definitly arent just in China, they exist in every nook and cranny around the globe and THEY are the real problem.

I wholeheartedly agree and never implied anything else.


The writer probably lives in finland for all we know, and just saw his fair use taken away, how about you cut him some slack.

I'll cut him some slack when he stops whining about it. ;)

BSDFreak
January 13th, 2006, 10:50 AM
Whatever chuckle head.

If i were you i'd read his post carefully, he does have plenty of valid points.

Iandefor
January 13th, 2006, 05:16 PM
None what so ever, you are perfectly free to not buy products if you do not agree with the licence you'll have to follow to use them. This is true. I had been referring to our freedoms in the context of owning a copyrighted work, though, which I hadn't made very clear.

viscount
January 14th, 2006, 12:51 AM
If i were you i'd read his post carefully, he does have plenty of valid points.

It's not his valid points that bother me, it's his sophisiticated attitued and
posturing and his apparent need for everything to be spelled out as if this were
philosophy-101.

He has admited he is a pirate but argues against it, myself on the other side
I've admited that I don't pirate but that I argue for "fair use", so idealogically I
think we're pretty irreconsilable.

With BSDFreak it feels like a conversation, with Devil'sAdvocate is feels like a
debate.

I'm not getting draged into philosophical debates. I've taken enough philosophy
in college that I have absolutely no desire to debate on a forum with complete
strangers about the subject. I'm not one of those that likes to speak just to
hear the sound of my own voice which in my experience is 90% of philosophers
today.

And I've also sat and stared at the lily's in enough temples that I dont need
someone spouting random quotes from Lin Chi at me.

"if you meet a buddha on the road, kill him" -- so that you learn to think
independantly and not limp upon the ideas of others. Good advice.

I really dont mind having conversations, even passionate ones where I disagree
with everyone and the **** starts flying, but if it turns into a big winded debate I
just dont have the time for conversations with that fine a granularity to them,
and quite frankly they bore me.

DevilsAdvocate
January 14th, 2006, 06:55 AM
It's not his valid points that bother me, it's his sophisiticated attitued and
posturing and his apparent need for everything to be spelled out as if this were
philosophy-101.

He has admited he is a pirate but argues against it, myself on the other side
I've admited that I don't pirate but that I argue for "fair use", so idealogically I
think we're pretty irreconsilable.

With BSDFreak it feels like a conversation, with Devil'sAdvocate is feels like a
debate.

I'm not getting draged into philosophical debates. I've taken enough philosophy
in college that I have absolutely no desire to debate on a forum with complete
strangers about the subject. I'm not one of those that likes to speak just to
hear the sound of my own voice which in my experience is 90% of philosophers
today.

And I've also sat and stared at the lily's in enough temples that I dont need
someone spouting random quotes from Lin Chi at me.

"if you meet a buddha on the road, kill him" -- so that you learn to think
independantly and not limp upon the ideas of others. Good advice.

I really dont mind having conversations, even passionate ones where I disagree
with everyone and the **** starts flying, but if it turns into a big winded debate I
just dont have the time for conversations with that fine a granularity to them,
and quite frankly they bore me.

Here's a philosophical term for you: Ad Hominem.
And here's some back at ya.

Discount, your first post to this thread wreaked of pseudo-philosophical pomposity, which instigated me to reply. You're a damned liar. You didn't mind Philosophy-101 back there. Now that you can't offer a criticism of my points, you criticize me. And, if this debate is so boring, why do you keep responding? Twice the liar. I'm sure your sitting there anything but bored. Or, maybe you're too stupid to realize that if something bore's you, you should probably do something else.

Iandefor
January 14th, 2006, 08:38 AM
Ad Hominem attacks are against the forum guidelines and the Ubuntu Code of Conduct. Take it elsewhere, Viscount and DevilsAdvocate, please. I'd appreciate having this thread remain in Community Chat.

viscount
January 15th, 2006, 12:49 PM
Here's a philosophical term for you: Ad Hominem.
And here's some back at ya.

Discount, your first post to this thread wreaked of pseudo-philosophical pomposity, which instigated me to reply. You're a damned liar. You didn't mind Philosophy-101 back there. Now that you can't offer a criticism of my points, you criticize me. And, if this debate is so boring, why do you keep responding? Twice the liar. I'm sure your sitting there anything but bored. Or, maybe you're too stupid to realize that if something bore's you, you should probably do something else.

EDIT: DELETED FLAME

Its just not worth it, two wrongs dont make a right.