the whole torrenting is stealing thing....

[Mokoma]

ok there seems to be a lot of discussion about this on these boards. but i kind of think of it like this

if downloading a movie is stealing, then what is recording it with a vhs/dvd/tivo or whatever.

if downloading a song is stealing, what is recording the song currently playing into your soundcard/recording a song from the radio?

its a pretty big grey area.

does that make every tivo/vhs/dvd recorder illegal?

[Skripka]

ok there seems to be a lot of discussion about this on these boards. but i kind of think of it like this

if downloading a movie is stealing, then what is recording it with a vhs/dvd/tivo or whatever.

if downloading a song is stealing, what is recording the song currently playing into your soundcard/recording a song from the radio?

its a pretty big grey area.

does that make every tivo/vhs/dvd recorder illegal?

You PAID for the TV signal. You PAID for the content therein, and it falls under Fair Use.

You did NOT pay for the torrent or the contents thereof.


It is really that simple. And it sure isn't gray at all.

[ad_267]

Where I live I'm pretty sure they're all illegal.

The actual hardware isn't illegal, just what you do with it.

[sekinto]

The difference is that when you torrent a copyrighted file you are getting it from people who don't have permission to distribute it (unless the copyright holder set up the torrent or gave permission).

[Peasantoid]

If the media companies had their way, even viewing their stuff would be illegal.

[swoll1980]

You PAID for the TV signal. You PAID for the content therein, and it falls under Fair Use.

You did NOT pay for the torrent or the contents thereof.


It is really that simple. And it sure isn't gray at all.

I agree there isn't much grey here. It's either black, or white.

[SunnyRabbiera]

ok there seems to be a lot of discussion about this on these boards. but i kind of think of it like this

if downloading a movie is stealing, then what is recording it with a vhs/dvd/tivo or whatever.

if downloading a song is stealing, what is recording the song currently playing into your soundcard/recording a song from the radio?

its a pretty big grey area.

does that make every tivo/vhs/dvd recorder illegal?

In a way it does, I mean technically you are not allowed to put files on a MP3 player but people do it anyway.
But digital media is a very sensitive area, unlike tapes CD's dont degrade after constant play (though CD's do have I think a 7 year lifespan so I heard) a file cannot be controlled like how the old methods they used to use...
In computers data is data and I think its that what scares these companies the most.

[lisati]

Whoever is seeding the torrent has a responsibility to make sure that they are not treading on any toes.
If all torrenting was illegal, then those who torrent various flavours of Ubuntu (or whatever) to help ease the load on the main servers would be in a difficult position.

EDIT: as for CDs etc not degrading, you haven't seen the condition some of the DVDs I've lent out come back in!

[Skripka]

Whoever is seeding the torrent has a responsibility to make sure that they are not treading on any toes.
If all torrenting was illegal, then those who torrent various flavours of Ubuntu (or whatever) to help ease the load on the main servers would be in a difficult position.

I believe the OP was wondering about IP such as movies/music or software that one must purchase to get...Linux is just about the only thing that is not illegal downloaded IP on most torrent sites.

[Firestem4]

The best example in my opinion.

i have NEVER heard of people getting sued by the record companies for sharing music cd's with one another. I do it with my friends all the time...But as soon as its on the computer and It goes somewhere accross the internet (say to a friend of mine) It is automatically illegal. Laws are inconsistent and arbitrary.

[Mokoma]

yeah but the end result is the same. i didnt PAY to get that movie/song. they way i obtained it dosent detract from the fact that i didnt pay the copyright holder for their content.

[Bölvaður]

Where I live I'm pretty sure they're all illegal.

The actual hardware isn't illegal, just what you do with it.

This was a problem I had to avoid mentioning when I was presenting my improved version of a media centre machine. But if some one points out illeagal things can be downloaded via my box I'd say films can be recorded on tape. We dont care what people do with our things, we only think about sales :)

[lisati]

I believe the OP was wondering about IP such as movies/music or software that one must purchase to get...Linux is just about the only thing that is not illegal downloaded IP on most torrent sites.

Good point: most (all?) of the CDs and DVDs I have purchased have some kind of "thou shalt not copy this without permission" condition attached. I think the Simpsons movie even has Bart writing on the blcakboard something to this effect.

[SunnyRabbiera]

The best example in my opinion.

i have NEVER heard of people getting sued by the record companies for sharing music cd's with one another. I do it with my friends all the time...But as soon as its on the computer and It goes somewhere accross the internet (say to a friend of mine) It is automatically illegal. Laws are inconsistent and arbitrary.

Indeed, if you say create a party mix for your friends you break the law...
Even if you dont sell it, its gotten that bad.
Thats why I dont care about these laws anymore, to heck with em!

[Mokoma]

The best example in my opinion.

i have NEVER heard of people getting sued by the record companies for sharing music cd's with one another. I do it with my friends all the time...But as soon as its on the computer and It goes somewhere accross the internet (say to a friend of mine) It is automatically illegal. Laws are inconsistent and arbitrary.

copyright laws are arcane and contridictary. they didnt see the threat and now there going to make you pay for their mistake. the only way they will ever stop filesharing will be to the point of making the internet so over policed and enforced that noone will be really able to use it well. p2p and the like is here to stay. as for businesse youve got to adjust or die. its really that simple

[benerivo]

In the uk, backup of any media is fine as long as you own the original. I also believe recording is fine, but it can only be kept within a reasonable timeframe for you to be able to watch it/hear it. I dont't think an exact number of days is specified, but it think it is considered to be around 28 days.

[ad_267]

The best example in my opinion.

i have NEVER heard of people getting sued by the record companies for sharing music cd's with one another. I do it with my friends all the time...But as soon as its on the computer and It goes somewhere accross the internet (say to a friend of mine) It is automatically illegal. Laws are inconsistent and arbitrary.

Copying your friends CD is still illegal, it's just harder to catch and not such a big problem.

As soon as you share a CD on a P2P service, it's not just one friend that's copying the CD, it's thousands. You can also be a lot more easily traced.

[Mokoma]

In the uk, backup of any media is fine as long as you own the original. I also believe recording is fine, but it can only be kept within a reasonable timeframe for you to be able to watch it/hear it. I dont't think an exact number of days is specified, but it think it is considered to be around 28 days.

i know. this is what i mean by contridictary. vhs has been around since before i was even born. does that make everyone in that time frame who recorded a film off the tv a thief? as the copyright holder wouldnt get the after market profit of a film from the vhs sales

[Firestem4]

Copying your friends CD is still illegal, it's just harder to catch and not such a big problem.

As soon as you share a CD on a P2P service, it's not just one friend that's copying the CD, it's thousands. You can also be a lot more easily traced.

im sure I could go to the FBI, tell em I let my friend borrow my CD. He burned it to his computer. They would look at me like: "So what?"...

[lisati]

i know. this is what i mean by contridictary. vhs has been around since before i was even born. does that make everyone in that time frame who recorded a film off the tv a thief? as the copyright holder wouldnt get the after market profit of a film from the vhs sales

I think in some places there are provisions in the local copyright laws for "time shift" recording so you can watch a program later.
I wonder how many of us in the forums would be walking on thin ice with the contents of our music, video and software collections.

[swoll1980]

i know. this is what i mean by contridictary. vhs has been around since before i was even born. does that make everyone in that time frame who recorded a film off the tv a thief? as the copyright holder wouldnt get the after market profit of a film from the vhs sales

No you paid for the content by watching the ads. As long as you don't sell it to some else, or charge them to watch it, it's fine.

[I-75]

The best example in my opinion.

i have NEVER heard of people getting sued by the record companies for sharing music cd's with one another. I do it with my friends all the time...But as soon as its on the computer and It goes somewhere accross the internet (say to a friend of mine) It is automatically illegal. Laws are inconsistent and arbitrary.

Correct, Public Libraries lend out books, CDs and Videos...yet no one is shutting them down.

[ad_267]

im sure I could go to the FBI, tell em I let my friend borrow my CD. He burned it to his computer. They would look at me like: "So what?"...

Read my second point. P2P isn't just one friend. Go to the FBI and tell them you burned and distributed 1000 copies. They won't be so impressed.

[Firestem4]

Someone mentioned Tivo..No one has mentioned MythBuntu (MythTV) All dem are pirates!!!

[Firestem4]

Read my second point. P2P isn't just one friend. Go to the FBI and tell them you burned and distributed 1000 copies. They won't be so impressed.

Yes but P2P doesn't necessitate streaming to thousands. What if I emailed my friend an album? it is going to him and him only. The same laws apply. I committed a crime.

[benerivo]

i know. this is what i mean by contridictary. vhs has been around since before i was even born. does that make everyone in that time frame who recorded a film off the tv a thief? as the copyright holder wouldnt get the after market profit of a film from the vhs sales

I think it just means you are meant to watch whatever you have recorded within a reasonable timeframe. You are safe within that timeframe. From a practical standpoint, you would not get done for owning a vhs tape with a copyrighted recording on it, as it is unpractical to wipe, but holding a TIVO type recording is another matter.

[Mokoma]

No you paid for the content by watching the ads. As long as you don't sell it to some else, or charge them to watch it, it's fine.

hmmm thats kind of a point. but then theres also the argument that if a film is broadcast on a major channel, which is available to say 90% of a countries nation, dosent that expose the films copyright holder to the threat of a large precentage of those people recording said film?
whatever the network payed to them for the permission to air the film would be nothing in the lost revenue they would be exposing themselves to if that happened!

[Mokoma]

I think it just means you are meant to watch whatever you have recorded within a reasonable timeframe. You are safe within that timeframe. From a practical standpoint, you would not get done for owning a vhs tape with a copyrighted recording on it, as it is unpractical to wipe, but holding a TIVO type recording is another matter.

mr flibble!!

[Firestem4]

if content holders DONT want people to "steal" (as their preferred term is) They should not let us have any access to it. Ergo: DRM.

[lisati]

Someone mentioned Tivo..No one has mentioned MythBuntu (MythTV) All dem are pirates!!!

I'd like to mention plug-in TV cards: the one I have works nicely with Vista's media center, but I haven't used it with Ubuntu yet.

[Firestem4]

I'd like to mention plug-in TV cards: the one I have works nicely with Vista's media center, but I haven't used it with Ubuntu yet.

Great point! My HP laptop has a TV tuner. And the software suite HP Media Center) Lets me record what I am viewing.

Microsofts Media Center lets you record what you are viewing! And its advertised on TV/ads etc.

[bashveank]

You're kind of correct. The major arguments for piracy (that I happen to very strongly agree with) are that:

a. Piracy is not stealing. Stealing is when you take something from someone, and they are then deprived of that thing. When you pirate something, you take something from someone, but they still have the original.

b. Piracy actually helps sales. The Office wasn't big at all until pirates picked it up, liked it, and started watching live, same for Firefly.
As for music, artists make the majority of their money from concerts, they should be actively giving away their music so that as many people as possible hear it and want to come to their shows. Trent Reznor of NiN is a great role model in this aspect. He gives his music away for free on his website and on The Pirate Bay, he even gives away the multitrack recordings on the internet.
Same thing for software. There is NO WAY Photoshop would be as widespread as it is were it not for Piracy. Do you really think that anyone but Graphic Designers and the painfully honest pay $600 for Photoshop? No? Well how is that everyone and their mom seems to have a copy. And Public use equates to business use (Graphic Designers paying for Photoshop because that's what they know).


You PAID for the TV signal. You PAID for the content therein, and it falls under Fair Use.

You did NOT pay for the torrent or the contents thereof.


It is really that simple. And it sure isn't gray at all.

I didn't pay for my TV signal, it is sent to me over the air, for free.

[bashveank]

Read my second point. P2P isn't just one friend. Go to the FBI and tell them you burned and distributed 1000 copies. They won't be so impressed.

But go tell the artist that you got 1,000 people to listen to their music, many becoming new fans of the band. They'll be thrilled.

[Mokoma]

You're kind of correct. The major arguments for piracy (that I happen to very strongly agree with) are that:

a. Piracy is not stealing. Stealing is when you take something from someone, and they are then deprived of that thing. When you pirate something, you take something from someone, but they still have the original.

b. Piracy actually helps sales. The Office wasn't big at all until pirates picked it up, liked it, and started watching live, same for Firefly.
As for music, artists make the majority of their money from concerts, they should be actively giving away their music so that as many people as possible hear it and want to come to their shows. Trent Reznor of NiN is a great role model in this aspect. He gives his music away for free on his website and on The Pirate Bay, he even gives away the multitrack recordings on the internet.
Same thing for software. There is NO WAY Photoshop would be as widespread as it is were it not for Piracy. Do you really think that anyone but Graphic Designers and the painfully honest pay $600 for Photoshop? No? Well how is that everyone and their mom seems to have a copy. And Public use equates to business use (Graphic Designers paying for Photoshop because that's what they know).



I didn't pay for my TV signal, it is sent to me over the air, for free.

well said

[Firestem4]

But go tell the artist that you got 1,000 people to listen to their music, many becoming new fans of the band. They'll be thrilled.

With that arguement in mind. if I want to support a band. I wont buy their cd's. I'll attend their concerts. Artists make almost NO money off of albums. (It is a freaking joke) And the best part is they don't own anything they created either. They don't even own the band name. Its all copyrighted by the Record Companies.

And no...a Record Company wont sign you unless they can own you.

[Mokoma]

With that arguement in mind. if I want to support a band. I wont buy their cd's. I'll attend their concerts. Artists make almost NO money off of albums. (It is a freaking joke) And the best part is they don't own anything they created either. They don't even own the band name. Its all copyrighted by the Record Companies.

And no...a Record Company wont sign you unless they can own you.

you dont know how true that is xD

[Firestem4]

you dont know how true that is xD

I believe I do. :D Just not firsthand.

:guitar:

[Mokoma]

I believe I do. :D Just not firsthand.

:guitar:

lol! well i do know firsthand :P

[Firestem4]

lol! well i do know firsthand :P


I'm so sorry *comfort*

[bashveank]

With that arguement in mind. if I want to support a band. I wont buy their cd's. I'll attend their concerts. Artists make almost NO money off of albums. (It is a freaking joke) And the best part is they don't own anything they created either. They don't even own the band name. Its all copyrighted by the Record Companies.

And no...a Record Company wont sign you unless they can own you.

Exactly, all of the money that the record makes from a CD goes towards supporting the lawyers that sue the people pirating the CD, not the artist.

[Mokoma]

Exactly, all of the money that the record makes from a CD goes towards supporting the lawyers that sue the people pirating the CD, not the artist.

ummm its not quite that bad but yeah :lolflag:

[ad_267]

But go tell the artist that you got 1,000 people to listen to their music, many becoming new fans of the band. They'll be thrilled.

I'm not trying to argue that it's wrong and that the artists don't want it, just that it's still illegal in most countries.

[night_fox]

In the UK, technically your only allowed to keep recorded TV for 48 hours.

Would you steal a car? Would you steal chocolate from a kid? Copying data is stealing and piracy. Deleting other peoples data is criminal damage. If your computer came with a copy windows on it, containing software worth £119.99, then since you probably deleted or resized the partition to install *an unsupported OS or other malware* (Recently, a number of instances of the "Linux" Rootkit and Trojan were detected and removed), you are in breach of the Microsoft (TM) licence agreement. ALL torrenting is illegal and immoral. Sharing restricted content is illegal and immoral and may harm your computer. There is no such thing as a *Free lunch* so be very suspicious if anyone gives you free software. Songs can be bought from the iTunes store, and kept for a period of time determined by Apple Inc. or for a fixed number of plays. Content can only be played with certified media devices. Should restricted content be found on your computer, the RIAA police will be informed, and may search your house and computer. BE WARNED. SOFTWARE PIRATES RISK JAIL AND THEIR RIGHT TO USE THE INTERNET AND THEIR RIGHT TO FREELY RENT MUSIC AND VIDEO.

[Firestem4]

I'm not trying to argue that it's wrong and that the artists don't want it, just that it's still illegal in most countries.

The biggest problem with fighting piracy and the like. Everyone is guilty of piracy.

Anyone who's ever posted a video on youtube using music you bought. You are infringing.

You watch a DVD on Linux.

You installed a software you didn't pay for. (Borrow from a friend)...Everyone. regardless of the severity has done "Something".

The nice thing is. the corporate world can not sue the entire world and get away with it.

[Mokoma]

in the uk, technically your only allowed to keep recorded tv for 48 hours.

Would you steal a car? Would you steal chocolate from a kid? Copying data is stealing and piracy. Deleting other peoples data is criminal damage. If your computer came with a copy windows on it, containing software worth £119.99, then since you probably deleted or resized the partition to install *an unsupported os or other malware* (recently, a number of instances of the "linux" rootkit and trojan were detected and removed), you are in breach of the microsoft (tm) licence agreement. All torrenting is illegal and immoral. Sharing restricted content is illegal and immoral and may harm your computer. There is no such thing as a *free lunch* so be very suspicious if anyone gives you free software. Songs can be bought from the itunes store, and kept for a period of time determined by apple inc. Or for a fixed number of plays. Content can only be played with certified media devices. Should restricted content be found on your computer, the riaa police will be informed, and may search your house and computer. Be warned. Software pirates risk jail and their right to use the internet and their right to freely rent music and video.

lol

[Firestem4]

Linux trojan and rootkit. ROFL

[Mokoma]

The biggest problem with fighting piracy and the like. Everyone is guilty of piracy.

Anyone who's ever posted a video on youtube using music you bought. You are infringing.

You watch a DVD on Linux.

You installed a software you didn't pay for. (Borrow from a friend)...Everyone. regardless of the severity has done "Something".

The nice thing is. the corporate world can not sue the entire world and get away with it.

the entire point is that the majority of laws are a joke. your told to respect the law, but the law dosent respect anything.

a 17 year old who sleeps with a his 15 year old girlfriend has to sign the sex offenders register.

a murderer gets a LIFE SENTENCE, with a minimum 5 year term before chance of parole, THERE SHOULD BE NO MINIMUM TERM. THEY WHERE GIVEN A LIFE SENTENCE MAKE THEM SERVE IT!!

and so on...

[bashveank]

I'm not trying to argue that it's wrong and that the artists don't want it, just that it's still illegal in most countries.

So fight the stupid laws! Wake up! Don't be a sheep!



In the UK, technically your only allowed to keep recorded TV for 48 hours.

Would you steal a car? Would you steal chocolate from a kid? Copying data is stealing and piracy. Deleting other peoples data is criminal damage. If your computer came with a copy windows on it, containing software worth £119.99, then since you probably deleted or resized the partition to install *an unsupported OS or other malware* (Recently, a number of instances of the "Linux" Rootkit and Trojan were detected and removed), you are in breach of the Microsoft (TM) licence agreement. ALL torrenting is illegal and immoral. Sharing restricted content is illegal and immoral and may harm your computer. There is no such thing as a *Free lunch* so be very suspicious if anyone gives you free software. Songs can be bought from the iTunes store, and kept for a period of time determined by Apple Inc. or for a fixed number of plays. Content can only be played with certified media devices. Should restricted content be found on your computer, the RIAA police will be informed, and may search your house and computer. BE WARNED. SOFTWARE PIRATES RISK JAIL AND THEIR RIGHT TO USE THE INTERNET AND THEIR RIGHT TO FREELY RENT MUSIC AND VIDEO.


Would you kill a police officer? Would you steal his helmet? Would you take a crap in it and deliver it to his widow?
All of these things, too, are the equivalent of piracy.

[gnomeuser]

If it's stealing that would be what they sue downloaders for, however it is not, you get hit with copyright infringement.

I will remain of the opinion that content owners are bringing this fight on themselves. They have a chance to create a saner system that will embrace technology, say if something like Hula was open to everyone the downloading of TV shows would surely plummet. I know I am sick of having to depend on a local network picking the series up in the first place which also means I don't get this weeks episode till months later. Additionally it is on their schedule so if they all run the good shows at the same time on different channels, how am I supposed to watch them all?

I have bought more music, movies and TV shows on DVD than I care to recall. Most of which I have sampled somehow first.

In some cases I have owned the full season of TV shows before they even started airing here (if ever). I would happily pay a fair sum for Magnatune like access to TV shows or be forced to sit through advertisement ala MSNBC' website or the transparent pop ups on youtube. There just isn't such an option.

Now is torrenting stealing, no - it is copyright infringement. Is it wrong, I don't think so, I think it's a sign of desperation on the part of many people or a desire to fall in love with new content. Is it illegal? That depends on the content.

I know the end result of having access to all manners of great content leads me to buying more. I think that would be true for most people once they feel that their direct payment goes towards showing what kinds of content they want more of.

The good news is that many content creators are starting to get it. Just now I have a full 20 gigs of fully legal music and movies sitting in my torrent queue. There is a growing amount of excellent free content out there available as samplers or on a donation basis. Sure we won't be doing 100 million dollar budget movies this way but that's okay technology has progressed to a point where we can do it cheaper and still have excellent entertainment, and it doesn't require a ph.d. to make a movie anymore.

My favorite new addition to my movie collection lately e.g. is The Gamers: Dorkness Rising. It speaks to a fairly narrow niche market but this is a market that is entirely untapped right now since there isn't funding to make this. I paid with a smile on my face hoping they would make more if sales were good. This I believe is the direction media needs to go. How many other little markets are there like this just waiting to be money makers for cunning, passionate content creators who get how to make an appealing bit of entertainment for that niche? I bet a lot.

[Firestem4]

So fight the stupid laws! Wake up! Don't be a sheep!

Would you kill a police officer? Would you steal his helmet? Would you take a crap in it and deliver it to his widow?
All of these things, too, are the equivalent of piracy.

Im not really sure if thats pirating....although i do think some psychiatric help would be in order lol

[Mokoma]

So fight the stupid laws! Wake up! Don't be a sheep!





Would you kill a police officer? Would you steal his helmet? Would you take a crap in it and deliver it to his widow?
All of these things, too, are the equivalent of piracy.

the it crowd? xD

[Wiebelhaus]

I think it's very simple and not gray at all , if the content was meant to be free then it is just that , But if it's meant to be paid for and someone uploads it to the network and you download it and listen to it and then burn it and listen to it in your car and also burn it for a buddy , your stealing regardless of the level of sharing.

[blastus]

Would you steal a car? Would you steal chocolate from a kid? Copying data is stealing and piracy.

IP is not real property. Saying that copying is stealing is like saying "You stole my heart." If someone were to really steal your heart you would die. The whole premise that copying is stealing is based on comparing and equating real (and physical) property to intellectual (and imaginary) property. If IP = real property then THERE WOULD BE NO NEED FOR INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY LAWS because the laws that apply to real property would equally apply to intellectual property. Obviously IP != real property so there are intellectual property laws. Not only that, these laws clearly exist to differentiate intellectual property against all forms of physical property.

[Mokoma]

I think it's very simple and not gray at all , if the content was meant to be free then it is just that , But if it's meant to be paid for and someone uploads it to the network and you download it and listen to it and then burn it and listen to it in your car and also burn it for a buddy , your stealing regardless of the level of sharing.

exactly, does that mean everyone should pay a fine. everyone who has recorded a film from tv to vhs/dvd/tivo who didnt delete it within XXXhours?

[rushmobius]

Assuming all song writers should only get paid for concerts is like....

Asking authors only to be paid for a live reading of their work.
Asking painters to only be paid for the opportunity to watch them paint.
Asking directors/actors to only be paid during production by a live audience.

In essence, as long as you are only viewing/listening to a copy and not the original work, it should be free?

Or are we simply asking everyone to change their business models to suite our desires?

I am not a strong opponent of piracy, but it is humorous when folks try to justify it.

I think it is easier to accept/understand(not necessarily condone), that many will bend/break the law with little thought...

Speeding while driving.
Not coming to a complete stop.
Drinking before the age of 21(or what the legal age is in your location).
Copying a song from a friend.
Downloading a pirated movie or game.
Cheating on your taxes.

/2 cents

[Mokoma]

Assuming all song writers should only get paid for concerts is like....

Asking authors only to be paid for a live reading of their work.
Asking painters to only be paid for the opportunity to watch them paint.
Asking directors/actors to only be paid during production by a live audience.

In essence, as long as you are only viewing/listening to a copy and not the original work, it should be free?

Or are we simply asking everyone to change their business models to suite our desires?

I am not a strong opponent of piracy, but it is humorous when folks try to justify it.

I think it is easier to accept/understand(not necessarily condone), that many will bend/break the law with little thought...

Speeding while driving.
Not coming to a complete stop.
Drinking before the age of 21(or what the legal age is in your location).
Copying a song from a friend.
Downloading a pirated movie or game.
Cheating on your taxes.

/2 cents

lmao nice comparison, but yeah buisnesse do have to change, the only alternative is to paralyse the internet to the extent that noone can communicate with anyone incase they send "copyrighted" material

[bashveank]

Assuming all song writers should only get paid for concerts is like....

Asking authors only to be paid for a live reading of their work.
Asking painters to only be paid for the opportunity to watch them paint.
Asking directors/actors to only be paid during production by a live audience.

In essence, as long as you are only viewing/listening to a copy and not the original work, it should be free?

Or are we simply asking everyone to change their business models to suite our desires?

I am not a strong opponent of piracy, but it is humorous when folks try to justify it.

I think it is easier to accept/understand(not necessarily condone), that many will bend/break the law with little thought...

Speeding while driving.
Not coming to a complete stop.
Drinking before the age of 21(or what the legal age is in your location).
Copying a song from a friend.
Downloading a pirated movie or game.
Cheating on your taxes.

/2 cents

Artists are ALREADY payed only for their concerts. You're living in a dream if you think the artist gets payed anything from their record labels.

I'm not asking anyone to change their business models to my desires, I'm asking them to change their business models to one where they DON'T go out of business and promote the vehicle that makes them money, as opposed to the one that doesn't.

[dragos240]

Torrenting is not illegal, torrenting things you would pay for is.

[happysmileman]

Assuming all song writers should only get paid for concerts is like....

Asking authors only to be paid for a live reading of their work.
Asking painters to only be paid for the opportunity to watch them paint.
Asking directors/actors to only be paid during production by a live audience.

No-one here is saying that's what SHOULD happen, we're saying that's what DOES happen.

WHen you pay your $10-20 for an album, the artist who created the music is lucky to get 50c from what I've heard, the rest (Minus the shop's share, and the cost of creating it, but still a fairly large share) goes to the record companies. That is how most poeople justify it.

They don't want to pay a tiny amount of money to the band, and a huge amount to a company that treats them like a criminal, for something that was created basically entirely by the band, and simply exploited for cash by the company.

That's why so many pirates tends to encourage seeing bands live and buying merchandise, but don't care at all about buying albums. Seeing them live and buying merchandise actually earns the band decent money

[blastus]

The biggest problem with fighting piracy and the like. Everyone is guilty of piracy.

Anyone who's ever posted a video on youtube using music you bought. You are infringing.

You watch a DVD on Linux.

You installed a software you didn't pay for. (Borrow from a friend)...Everyone. regardless of the severity has done "Something".

The nice thing is. the corporate world can not sue the entire world and get away with it.

Exactly. When everyone else is doing it it becomes the social norm. The media companies are trying to fight social change and they can't. Instead of fighting the technology, the media companies should embrace it. The idea of controlling a piece of information on a huge piece of plastic these days is ridiculous.

Generations are growing up not knowing and not caring what IP is. To them they intuitively understand that downloading something from the Internet is not the same thing as stealing.

[bashveank]

Torrenting is not illegal, torrenting things you would pay for is.

That's another good point. Most pirates would NEVER buy things that they pirate. Who would pay $600 for Photoshop unless they need it for their job? Who could justify. the entire Beatles discography

[night_fox]

Would you kill a police officer? Would you steal his helmet? Would you take a crap in it and deliver it to his widow?
All of these things, too, are the equivalent of piracy.

Lol

And would you spit in the face of the creator, software pioneer and philanthropist Bill Gates? Furthermore, I hope you see that the future is cloud computing, so you need to give him all your files.



There are acceptable amounts by which you can bend most rules. Some of these have even been written into them, for instance the max speed limit in the UK is 70mph but they allow you 10% + 2 mph just in case theres any doubt, but most people go at 80+ on motorways anyway.

I think the balance of power between "pirates" and businesses is almost acceptable at the moment. It's very easy to pirate things but businesses can still make more than enough money from people who are ignorant or are rich enough not to care about buying DVDs. The law should allow file sharing but not selling of pirated DVDs.

Having said that, I think the establishment need to respect peoples rights on their computers more, and completely acknowledge that everything on your computer belongs to YOU.

Piracy must terrify stakeholders in businesses - people getting the thing that's paying your salary for free! And in a more easily accessible, smaller, less scratchable, more playable way!

[rushmobius]

As for artists being compensated purely through performance, please note that most artists don't actually perform.

The next time you listen to a song, pull up a list of everyone else involved in making the song. Many so-called artists are responsible for little other than actually performing on stage and couldn't write a song or play an instrument to save their life.

...I do agree that creator's of content need to find new ways to generate income otherwise they'll be stuck behind corporate interests too tied to the past.

[supersonicdarky]

Time to spread one of my ideologies:

1) As an artist (music-wise), if you cannot make a living from concerts alone, you should concider music a hobby.
2) Copyright is the stupidest creation of man kind. Sharing everything is by far the most productive way to go (as long as the creator's name/website/etc is distributed with the content).
3a) Software should not cost money (maybe $10 at most), as once 1 copy is written, it can be copied millions of times, unlike a car that you need to manually make copies of.
3b) Following point 3a, anything that is not physical or is not a laborious service, should be free.
4) Downloading is the way to go as it reduces waste.

Now for some truths:
1) Most of what people download (from my experience), they would not actually buy. Therefore there are not lost sales.
2) Adobe wants their software to be pirated. Because if it does, people will use it. And if people who use it and make it big, the company will buy them the whole creative suite, thus profit for adobe.

[Mokoma]

Time to spread one of my ideologies:

1) As an artist (music-wise), if you cannot make a living from concerts alone, you should concider music a hobby.
2) Copyright is the stupidest creation of man kind. Sharing everything is by far the most productive way to go (as long as the creator's name/website/etc is distributed with the content).
3a) Software should not cost money (maybe $10 at most), as once 1 copy is written, it can be copied millions of times, unlike a car that you need to manually make copies of.
3b) Following point 3a, anything that is not physical or is not a laborious service, should be free.
4) Downloading is the way to go as it reduces waste.

Now for some truths:
1) Most of what people download (from my experience), they would not actually buy. Therefore there are not lost sales.
2) Adobe wants their software to be pirated. Because if it does, people will use it. And if people who use it and make it big, the company will buy them the whole creative suite, thus profit for adobe.

very well put :)

[bashveank]

Time to spread one of my ideologies:

1) As an artist (music-wise), if you cannot make a living from concerts alone, you should concider music a hobby.
2) Copyright is the stupidest creation of man kind. Sharing everything is by far the most productive way to go (as long as the creator's name/website/etc is distributed with the content).
3a) Software should not cost money (maybe $10 at most), as once 1 copy is written, it can be copied millions of times, unlike a car that you need to manually make copies of.
3b) Following point 3a, anything that is not physical or is not a laborious service, should be free.
4) Downloading is the way to go as it reduces waste.

Now for some truths:
1) Most of what people download (from my experience), they would not actually buy. Therefore there are not lost sales.
2) Adobe wants their software to be pirated. Because if it does, people will use it. And if people who use it and make it big, the company will buy them the whole creative suite, thus profit for adobe.

Quoted for truth. There's actually a quote by Steve Ballmer where he says that he wants Windows to be pirated.

[lisati]

2) Copyright is the stupidest creation of man kind. Sharing everything is by far the most productive way to go (as long as the creator's name/website/etc is distributed with the content).

If for some reason we end up doing away with copyright, we'll have to find another way to protect artists' rights to be rewarded (or at least acknowledged) for their contribution to a particular project. We can't count on people doing the right thing.....

[Mehall]

If for some reason we end up doing away with copyright, we'll have to find another way to protect artists' rights to be rewarded (or at least acknowledged) for their contribution to a particular project. We can't count on people doing the right thing.....

That's why we have stuff like the various Creative Commons licenses.

Granted, they were created through need to meet the current copyright system, but they're well designed.

[SuperSonic4]

Lol

And would you spit in the face of the creator, software pioneer and philanthropist Bill Gates? Furthermore, I hope you see that the future is cloud computing, so you need to give him all your files.



There are acceptable amounts by which you can bend most rules. Some of these have even been written into them, for instance the max speed limit in the UK is 70mph but they allow you 10% + 2 mph just in case theres any doubt, but most people go at 80+ on motorways anyway.

I think the balance of power between "pirates" and businesses is almost acceptable at the moment. It's very easy to pirate things but businesses can still make more than enough money from people who are ignorant or are rich enough not to care about buying DVDs. The law should allow file sharing but not selling of pirated DVDs.

Having said that, I think the establishment need to respect peoples rights on their computers more, and completely acknowledge that everything on your computer belongs to YOU.

Piracy must terrify stakeholders in businesses - people getting the thing that's paying your salary for free! And in a more easily accessible, smaller, less scratchable, more playable way!

I read it was because of errors in the car's speedo, because only 70 and 75 are marked no reasonable driver can tell if they are doing 70.5


I think pirated music is an excellent way to check out new music or get a band's back catalogue. For example I found Powerslave (by Iron Maiden) in the bargain bin for £3. Given a normal cd would sell for £10-£15 it would mean the artist would get a negligible amount plus this cd was made in 1984. Piracy also seems to be a way of measuring quality - a lot of people I know buy music on CD from their favourite bands because they know it will be worth the price. Piracy is for the unknown or lesser band/album or song that would otherwise only be available on a complete album.

The way we view media is changing now, you can download iPlayer content but it is DRM infected so you can only use the BBC software for time x. Same with iTunes protected files and iTunes. Ultimately non windows or mac users are going to suffer the most because there is little effort towards enabling such formats in Linux - even for transcoding. I have a library of m4p songs from my old laptop and rescued from a hard drive. I've paid once, why should I be forced to pay for the same thing twice? I'm not entirely sure but I believe a personal backup is acceptable in the UK.

From another angle torrenting can be used as a staggered download which is largely the case with FOSS torrents. A torrent will restart should the internet connection drop out

[Stupendoussteve]

yeah but the end result is the same. i didnt PAY to get that movie/song. they way i obtained it dosent detract from the fact that i didnt pay the copyright holder for their content.

The person distributing the media paid for the rights to distribute it to you. The whole "downloading is bad" is not what people get in trouble for, people are taken to court for copyright infringement when they are distributing copyrighted content without permission.


i know. this is what i mean by contridictary. vhs has been around since before i was even born. does that make everyone in that time frame who recorded a film off the tv a thief? as the copyright holder wouldnt get the after market profit of a film from the vhs sales

If you were to take what you had recorded and distribute it, you are infringing on the copyright holder's rights. I believe the right to record the media from TV and radio was upheld back when companies were whining about VHS putting them out of business.


Correct, Public Libraries lend out books, CDs and Videos...yet no one is shutting them down.

Libraries lend out items for a set amount of time. I believe they are able to get away with it because they are not keeping the originals during this time, so it is not much different than if you deleted Windows and then gave away the CD and key (perfectly legal). Sparing that, they probably have permission from copyright holders.

[Mokoma]

yes but there have been cases of people being prosecuted for just downloading not distributing.

[I-75]

If you were to take what you had recorded and distribute it, you are infringing on the copyright holder's rights. I believe the right to record the media from TV and radio was upheld back when companies were whining about VHS putting them out of business.



This is where it could get real murky.

Suppose one records a movie on VHS from Lifetime and then watches it later. OK

Suppose one records a movie on VHS from Lifetime and then watches it later with a house full of people. Should be OK.

Suppose one records a movie on VHS from Lifetime and then mails the VHS to Aunt Martha.... not OK?

Suppose one records a movie on VHS from Lifetime and mails it Aunt Martha and then she watches it with some friends at her house. not OK?

Suppose one records a movie on VHS from Lifetime and then digitizes it and puts it on Aunt Martha's computer. not OK

[Mokoma]

This is where it could get real murky.

Suppose one records a movie on VHS from Lifetime and then watches it later. OK

Suppose one records a movie on VHS from Lifetime and then watches it later with a house full of people. Should be OK.

Suppose one records a movie on VHS from Lifetime and then mails the VHS to Aunt Martha.... not OK?

Suppose one records a movie on VHS from Lifetime and mails it Aunt Martha and then she watches it with some friends at her house. not OK?

Suppose one records a movie on VHS from Lifetime and then digitizes it and puts it on Aunt Martha's computer. not OK

i borrow recorded movies from friends quite often. does that make me an evil criminal genius? :biggrin:

[Skripka]

Suppose one records a movie on VHS from Lifetime and then mails the VHS to Aunt Martha.... not OK?

Suppose one records a movie on VHS from Lifetime and mails it Aunt Martha and then she watches it with some friends at her house. not OK?

Suppose one records a movie on VHS from Lifetime and then digitizes it and puts it on Aunt Martha's computer. not OK

Unless Aunt Martha is charging a viewing/entry fee, odds are she'll be fine.

[mkvnmtr]

No matter how you feel about torrenting please don't tell me something is illegal unless you are an attorney in the country where it happened. I really don't think you should confuse a civil matter with a crime. Maybe it should be a crime to spread false information.

[rushmobius]

Time to spread one of my ideologies:

3a) Software should not cost money (maybe $10 at most), as once 1 copy is written, it can be copied millions of times, unlike a car that you need to manually make copies of.
3b) Following point 3a, anything that is not physical or is not a laborious service, should be free.
4) Downloading is the way to go as it reduces waste.

Now for some truths:
1) Most of what people download (from my experience), they would not actually buy. Therefore there are not lost sales.


I develop software for a living. If it takes me a year to write a new application, should I only charge $10 to the first person, who then should be allowed to copy and distribute it freely? Shouldn't that be my choice? Or should I be forced to only develop software that warrants individuals to pay me additional money for changes to it?

Why must abilities that don't generate physical goods be so limited due to the flexibility of their distribution?

To the other point...I agree it isn't a lost sale, since most wouldn't have bought it in any case. But does that actually justify doing it anyways, or is that simply a rebuttal to the corporate talking heads who claim imaginary losses all the time.

[bashveank]

I develop software for a living. If it takes me a year to write a new application, should I only charge $10 to the first person, who then should be allowed to copy and distribute it freely? Shouldn't that be my choice? Or should I be forced to only develop software that warrants individuals to pay me additional money for changes to it?

Why must abilities that don't generate physical goods be so limited due to the flexibility of their distribution?

To the other point...I agree it isn't a lost sale, since most wouldn't have bought it in any case. But does that actually justify doing it anyways, or is that simply a rebuttal to the corporate talking heads who claim imaginary losses all the time.

You're not just selling it to one person for $10 though, if your software is really that good, and you are a community driven developer, anyone who would pay for software wont pirate it, they'll pay the $10, just cause they like you. Case in point, Jonathan Coulton, all of his music is given away for free, but he still sells quite enough to make a nice living. He even gets regular donations from people that have pirated his music and liked it so much that they thought he should've been payed for it. The more people that have access to your
Valve regularly put's their games on random 50-75% off and sales go up phenomenally.
I'm not advocating $10, freely distributable software, necessarily, just saying.

[blastus]

I develop software for a living. If it takes me a year to write a new application, should I only charge $10 to the first person, who then should be allowed to copy and distribute it freely? Shouldn't that be my choice? Or should I be forced to only develop software that warrants individuals to pay me additional money for changes to it?

Why must abilities that don't generate physical goods be so limited due to the flexibility of their distribution?

Here we go again with the "I'm a software developer so I hate piracy." If you're developing shrink wrapped software that re-invents the wheel and passes itself off as *innovative*, you're in an old business that is doomed to fail. No one wants to pay huge prices for commodity software anymore and there readily available open source solutions for almost everything nowadays. Hosted business-to-business solutions; taking open source building blocks and making customized innovative solutions out of them is where it's at.

[CJ Master]

Quoted for truth. There's actually a quote by Steve Ballmer where he says that he wants Windows to be pirated.

[Citation needed]

[TBOL3]

Ok, I read about 4-5 pages of this and got fed up with the whole thing. Watch this:
http://ocw.mit.edu/OcwWeb/Electrical-Engineering-and-Computer-Science/6-912January--IAP--2006/CourseHome/index.htm

Then, if you still want to argue, go read the copyright office's 300 page book on copyright. http://copyright.gov/

Then go ahead and argue. (Oh, and this only applies to US copyright, I haven't studied any other country).

[Cope57]

If copying music is bad for the music industry and
Ripping movies is bad for the movie industry
Then home cooking is bad for the restaurant industry.

It all makes sense now. [/sarcasm]

[lisati]

At the end of the day, what's copyright there for? It's about giving the people who produce something the right to say who gets to copy it and about giving credit where credit is due.

[Therion]

i borrow recorded movies from friends quite often. does that make me an evil criminal genius? :biggrin:
Only in Leicester.

In the 'States we have Fair Use laws which state that we may, legally, make ONE backup copy for PERSONAL use of copyrighted material we have paid for. This would include - but is not limited to - movies, music and software.

You run afoul of Fair Use when you lend, transfer or make available for transfer (e.g. P2P) that one personal use copy, or make more than one copy. That's why your Windows install CD says not to make "Illegal" copies rather than "Illegal to Copy" or "Do Not Copy".

Fair Use is why you can (legally) make a copy of a DVD you buy, why you can have friends over to watch it (so long as you don't charge them to do so) and why you CAN'T (legally) transfer a copy of that same movie to Aunt Martha: Not on a DVD and not to her computer and not even on "loansies"; that is no longer "personal use". Aunt Martha needs to buy her own copy and have you make her a personal-use backup.

Are movies and software releases frequently encrypted to prevent you from making your one, entirely legal, personal-use backup? Yes. And, in theory, that's just as illegal. Unfortunately the laws and the courts in this country do not move as fast as the technology.

That's Fair Use. The ethics of file-sharing are a personal affair and if you have to ask yourself if what you're doing is "wrong" (in the ethical sense) then it probably is and you know it and anything you tell yourself to the contrary is simple rationalization. Frankly, I don't give a damn if you pirate or not, but at least be honest with yourself about it if you are.

[Bios Element]

In a way it does, I mean technically you are not allowed to put files on a MP3 player but people do it anyway.
But digital media is a very sensitive area, unlike tapes CD's dont degrade after constant play (though CD's do have I think a 7 year lifespan so I heard) a file cannot be controlled like how the old methods they used to use...
In computers data is data and I think its that what scares these companies the most.

Bush, the President of the United States had the Beatles on his iPod. This was before you could DL it legally. He ripped it from a CD and copied it over. He broke the law. Now if the president, with all his legal advisor's does this and no one notices...There's a major problem with the system

(Don't turn this into an anti or pro bush battle. No one cares.)

[ad_267]

The artists decide to release their work under certain terms and if that's what they want then why should you be able to use their music in a way they don't want?

If you don't like the copyright laws then start getting your music from Jamendo or similar sites, and support the artists that think you should be able to download their music.

Yes a lot of the laws are rubbish, but that's not going to change if everyone keeps supporting the industry that makes the rules.

[Skripka]

Bush, the President of the United States had the Beatles on his iPod. This was before you could DL it legally. He ripped it from a CD and copied it over. He broke the law. Now if the president, with all his legal advisor's does this and no one notices...There's a major problem with the system

(Don't turn this into an anti or pro bush battle. No one cares.)

If he owned teh CD-then it is fair use.

[Northsider]

EDIT: removed

[bashveank]

Only in Leicester.

In the 'States we have Fair Use laws which state that we may, legally, make ONE backup copy for PERSONAL use of copyrighted material we have paid for. This would include - but is not limited to - movies, music and software.

You run afoul of Fair Use when you lend, transfer or make available for transfer (e.g. P2P) that one personal use copy, or make more than one copy. That's why your Windows install CD says not to make "Illegal" copies rather than "Illegal to Copy" or "Do Not Copy".

Fair Use is why you can (legally) make a copy of a DVD you buy, why you can have friends over to watch it (so long as you don't charge them to do so) and why you CAN'T (legally) transfer a copy of that same movie to Aunt Martha: Not on a DVD and not to her computer and not even on "loansies"; that is no longer "personal use". Aunt Martha needs to buy her own copy and have you make her a personal-use backup.

Are movies and software releases frequently encrypted to prevent you from making your one, entirely legal, personal-use backup? Yes. And, in theory, that's just as illegal. Unfortunately the laws and the courts in this country do not move as fast as the technology.

That's Fair Use. The ethics of file-sharing are a personal affair and if you have to ask yourself if what you're doing is "wrong" (in the ethical sense) then it probably is and you know it and anything you tell yourself to the contrary is simple rationalization. Frankly, I don't give a damn if you pirate or not, but at least be honest with yourself about it if you are.

We don't actually have fair use laws in the US, we have a few people that say we should have fair use, but no actual legislation. That's why Viacom could take down the Youtube video of the kid dancing to Prince music for copyright infringement.


Anyway, I think the point of this thread isn't to say that piracy is legal, but that it should be.

[Mokoma]

Not really. In terms of the law there's no grey area...but in terms of making sense, it's definitely not black or white. You PAY for an internet connection, so what's the difference?

i gave up living by the law a long time ago. i just live with my conscious and by common sense. it works much better and is far fairer >.>

[Skripka]

We don't actually have fair use laws in the US, we have a few people that say we should have fair use, but no actual legislation.

Really?

Take a look at the Wiki on Fair Use, and then come back.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_use

[TBOL3]

Or better yet, READ THE ACTUAL LAW!!!

Sheesh people. Stop speculating, read it. It's right there, in plain english, take some time and read it. You will see what is fair use, and what isn't. Most of the time, it's not gray, only very rarely is it gray, and for those FEW cases, you will want someone with a JD.

[bashveank]

Really?

Take a look at the Wiki on Fair Use, and then come back.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_use

Considered invalid as videos of children dancing to Prince music, a baby video with a copyrighted song in the background, a girl singing Winter Wonderland at a talent show, etc... were all taken down for copyright violation.
Additionally, a number of videos have had their audio muted because of BACKGROUND copyrighted music.
At the last CES there were RIAA lawyers roaming the halls searching for companies that they could sue because they were playing copyrighted music at their booths.

There is no fair use in the US.



Or better yet, READ THE ACTUAL LAW!!!

Sheesh people. Stop speculating, read it. It's right there, in plain english, take some time and read it. You will see what is fair use, and what isn't. Most of the time, it's not gray, only very rarely is it gray, and for those FEW cases, you will want someone with a JD.

Again, I don't believe this post is about speculation, it's about what SHOULD be the case, not what actually is.

[Firestem4]

Considered invalid as videos of little girls dancing to Prince music, a baby video with a copyrighted song in the background, a girl singing Winter Wonderland at a talent show, etc... were all taken down for copyright violation.
Additionally, a number of videos have had their audio muted because of BACKGROUND copyrighted music.
At the last CES there were RIAA lawyers roaming the halls searching for companies that they could sue because they were playing copyrighted music at their booths.

There is no fair use in the US.

Fair Use is Fair for the ones who get to sue you over your Use.

[Mr. Picklesworth]

I think the first step about being honest here is not calling it "piracy". The recent piracy fiasco that was all over the news (the real one, with boats and guns) should demonstrate why.

I have no issue downloading TV shows over torrent networks. The shows I watch are all available via public broadcasters that I get via antenna, and I ignore their advertisements regardless. (Even watching normally I AM getting TV without paying them thanks to how I couldn't care less about TV advertising. Let's see how long it takes them to catch on). Sure, the TV broadcaster sometimes airs a show a bit later than when it is first available for download, but my existence has duration so that isn't really a problem.

If it was easy to directly pay the ones who made the show, I absolutely would. However, this is made exceedingly difficult because it seems to go through many other redundant parties before it reaches me, many of whom I do not benefit from when I download with peer-to-peer file sharing protocols.

[bashveank]

I think the first step about being honest here is not calling it "piracy". The recent piracy fiasco that was all over the news (the real one, with boats and guns) should demonstrate why.

http://img371.imageshack.us/img371/9599/piracyjq1.png

:D

[KiwiNZ]

The Law in YOUR country is what applies to this

[rushmobius]

Here we go again with the "I'm a software developer so I hate piracy." If you're developing shrink wrapped software that re-invents the wheel and passes itself off as *innovative*, you're in an old business that is doomed to fail. No one wants to pay huge prices for commodity software anymore and there readily available open source solutions for almost everything nowadays. Hosted business-to-business solutions; taking open source building blocks and making customized innovative solutions out of them is where it's at.

Please read my earlier posts in the thread before making assumptions.

I even stated I am not strongly opposed to piracy. I don't believe in draconian controls or DRM to prevent it.

I was simply responding to the notion that software should 'cost $10 at most', purely due to the fact it is so easy to copy.
I believe in open source software for many things, but it is more of an ideal than a panacea.

If users don't want to purchase software, that is their choice. Just as it is the businesses choice to decide how they want to market their products and services. If they find the current market isn't viable, then they will change.

Personally I believe if you are selling software, it should follow a basic formula (cost of development,distribution, support etc)/(expected # of purchases over the life of the software) + (reasonable profit margin).

/edited here

bashveank - funny image ;) I agree, it should be called copyright violation and not piracy.

[Skripka]

Considered invalid as videos of children dancing to Prince music, a baby video with a copyrighted song in the background, a girl singing Winter Wonderland at a talent show, etc... were all taken down for copyright violation.
Additionally, a number of videos have had their audio muted because of BACKGROUND copyrighted music.
At the last CES there were RIAA lawyers roaming the halls searching for companies that they could sue because they were playing copyrighted music at their booths.

There is no fair use in the US.


Yes there is. Look beyond what the RIAA is doing.

My Uni has a complete collection in the music library of audio tapes that were recorded from certain radio broadcasts that is available from no place else commercially or otherwise, that was gifted from a bored philanthropist which recorded every show. The school asked the legal department who made inquiries, and the tapes are available under Fair Use.

YouTube is one of those exceptional things where someone stomps on it automatically. I don't see how YouTube could qualify under Fair Use anyway.


Don't get me wrong, in my field we despise copyright law-as all it does is keep rare books and other materials unavailable from researchers.

[bashveank]

Yes there is. Look beyond what the RIAA is doing.

My Uni has a complete collection in the music library of audio tapes that were recorded from certain radio broadcasts that is available from no place else commercially or otherwise, that was gifted from a bored philanthropist which recorded every show. The school asked the legal department who made inquiries, and the tapes are available under Fair Use.

YouTube is one of those exceptional things where someone stomps on it automatically. I don't see how YouTube could qualify under Fair Use anyway.


Don't get me wrong, in my field we despise copyright law-as all it does is keep rare books and other materials unavailable from researchers.

Consider yourself lucky to live in one of the last bastions of freedom then. At my town, university students (like myself) aren't allowed to borrow movies from the library or Blockbuster, because chances are, we'd watch them in the dorm lounge, and that constitutes a public showing.

[Skripka]

Consider yourself lucky to live in one of the last bastions of freedom then. At my town, university students (like myself) aren't allowed to borrow movies from the library or Blockbuster, because chances are, we'd watch them in the dorm lounge, and that constitutes a public showing.

Well, dorms suck anyway ;)

Unis have to walk a fine line what with certain DMCA provisions etc-to keep the RIAA from jumping down their throats. That audio tape collection is in-library access by graduate students only as I recall-but is still an official resource at least.

My school is one of those that basically hands students over to the RIAA without a second of thought.

[Methuselah]

Ownership has been defined so that you pay for things but never really own them.
Since you don't own them, you don't have the right to share them with anyone.
It's like the serfs in ancient Europe. They worked the land but they didn't own it.
This trick is as old as humanity.