PDA

View Full Version : RIAA Sues Woman Who Has Never Used a Computer



xequence
February 3rd, 2006, 06:21 PM
Marie Lindor, a home health aide who has never bought, used, or even turned on a computer in her life, was sued by the RIAA in Brooklyn federal court for using an 'online distribution system' to 'download, distribute, and/or make available for distribution' plaintiff's music files. She has requested a pre-motion conference in anticipation of making a summary judgment motion dismissing the complaint and awarding her attorneys fees under the Copyright Act."


http://recordingindustryvspeople.blogspot.com/2006/02/marie-lindor-to-move-for-summary.html

Good job, RIAA. Another smart move.

DigitalDuality
February 3rd, 2006, 07:14 PM
I don't wish good things on anyone who works for the RIAA, and i'll just leave it at that, rather than my normal morbid, shocking, vulgar statements.

weasel fierce
February 3rd, 2006, 07:18 PM
Clearly, they are aiming to prevent piracy by suing before people become pirates!

xequence
February 3rd, 2006, 07:19 PM
Clearly, they are aiming to prevent piracy by suing before people become pirates!

Oh, like that movie... I dont know what it was called, but they tried to catch criminals before they did the crime =P

weasel fierce
February 3rd, 2006, 07:21 PM
Minority Report I think it was. The one with Tom Cruise

gord
February 3rd, 2006, 07:30 PM
if you live in the uk, you can get arrested before you do a crime now, ain't that a hoot... so much for innocent until proven guilty

DigitalDuality
February 3rd, 2006, 07:32 PM
Tom Cruise rules ;)
http://www.ifilm.com/ifilmdetail/2674673

xequence
February 3rd, 2006, 08:14 PM
Tom Cruise rules ;)
http://www.ifilm.com/ifilmdetail/2674673

Isnt that the guy who is in that religion where you pay 250k to be a top rank or something?

Brunellus
February 3rd, 2006, 08:30 PM
Isnt that the guy who is in that religion where you pay 250k to be a top rank or something?
I didn't know he was a member of the Republican Party (U.S.A.)

;-p

Deaf_Head
February 3rd, 2006, 08:39 PM
I didn't know he was a member of the Republican Party (U.S.A.)

;-p


WIN.

xequence
February 3rd, 2006, 08:53 PM
I didn't know he was a member of the Republican Party (U.S.A.)

;-p

American politics stinks. All it is is one party does something and the other party tries to stop it at any cost.

TechSonic
February 3rd, 2006, 10:27 PM
Wtfh?

chimera
February 3rd, 2006, 11:15 PM
My opinion on piracy:

Some people claim it's stealing. The definition of stealing is "transaction of property from one person or organization to another, without the consent of the party who loses property". If you rip a CD, you just copy files to your HD, leaving the originals on it. Same if you download them (unless you crack the server later, but that's another story). The original stays there, you just copy it. I think copyright laws should be abolished alltogether. Data and information should be free for anyone, as should every word ever written by a human be availble for free to any human. RIAA are just a bunch of greedy capitalists who'd sue their mothers for whistling their copyrighted songs.[-(

I never have and never will buy any music as long as I can get it for free. Those companies who claim they're loosing profit because of piracy are forgetting about one thing: How much people who downloaded your music would have bought it if they couldn't download it? The ansewer: very few. So let's face it - piracy isn't hurting anyone, their stupid copyright laws are. Making money by MAKING people pay for something they can get for free is just plain wrong.

xequence
February 4th, 2006, 12:04 AM
I agree Chimera.

Of course artists need to make money. How? Concerts! You cant duplicate a concert by downloading it over P2P. Yes, you can get the recording of it, but it often isnt that good. It is just amazing to accually be at a concert. If you have no chance to go to it, sure, download the live recording, but nothing beats the experience of seeing a great band live.

jeremy
February 4th, 2006, 02:24 PM
I also largely agree with chimera, but I do think that there should be a law to ensure credit, ie. if I write a book, people should be able to copy it freely, but not to claim that they wrote it.

krusbjorn
February 4th, 2006, 02:49 PM
I dont agree at all. Music shouldn't be free unless the people who made it think so. If it is "stealing" or not doesnt really matter. It's about ethics. They made the music, it's up to them if they want you to pay for it or not. If people have problems with calling it "stealing", lets call it "illegal copying" then.

Lots of artists arent able to make a decent amount of money by just doing concerts, especially those doing less popular type of music, say jazz for example. There are loads and loads of music that would never have been produced unless they charged for the CDs. I dont even wanna think how much of my music collection that would never have been made unless people had paid for it.

Sure, the record companies are greedy bastards. But if you like the music and download it illegally, the least you can do is donate the amount of money the artist would have made from a sold CD, directly to the artist. Then you wont sponsor the record company, but you will still help make sure the artist will be able to continue doing what s/he is best at.

Saying "i dont think this should cost money, so i wont pay for it" is just plain stupid. It's not up to you.

Derek Djons
February 4th, 2006, 02:56 PM
Also here in The Netherlands there is a full-scale war going on. It's not that pirates are trying to crack the organization by DDOS'ing them, compromize their websites, these things are being done in The Netherlands :)

But no there's a much more sensitive war going on. Organization like the RIAA and B.I.G. (Ban Illegal Games, in The Netherlands we say: "Branden Is Goedkoper" = "Burning Is Cheaper") are trying to get there hands on ISP logs and records. You probably understand that this means almost zero freedom and pricavy.

1. The government is after ISP logs.
2. Organizations are after full view in ISP logs.

It's in my opinion a bad thing when these organization are being granted full coorporation. None of those are actually transparant. Nobody knows what happens to all that money, I can't imagine a organization which doesn't benifit from such business and if therefore they are dedicated to the cause of the money.

mips
February 4th, 2006, 04:06 PM
I dont agree at all. Music shouldn't be free unless the people who made it think so. If it is "stealing" or not doesnt really matter. It's about ethics. They made the music, it's up to them if they want you to pay for it or not. If people have problems with calling it "stealing", lets call it "illegal copying" then.

Lots of artists arent able to make a decent amount of money by just doing concerts, especially those doing less popular type of music, say jazz for example. There are loads and loads of music that would never have been produced unless they charged for the CDs. I dont even wanna think how much of my music collection that would never have been made unless people had paid for it.

Sure, the record companies are greedy bastards. But if you like the music and download it illegally, the least you can do is donate the amount of money the artist would have made from a sold CD, directly to the artist. Then you wont sponsor the record company, but you will still help make sure the artist will be able to continue doing what s/he is best at.

Saying "i dont think this should cost money, so i wont pay for it" is just plain stupid. It's not up to you.

I agree. But as in all walks of life you will always find people without morals or ethics.

Sheinar
February 4th, 2006, 04:17 PM
Lots of artists arent able to make a decent amount of money by just doing concerts, especially those doing less popular type of music, say jazz for example. There are loads and loads of music that would never have been produced unless they charged for the CDs. I dont even wanna think how much of my music collection that would never have been made unless people had paid for it.
I don't know about all artists in general, but the less popular bands that I listen to only manage to keep playing music because of the money from concerts. Though, I guess they don't make a decent amount of money in general, the money they make from CD sales is rather mediocre and most of them really don't care about them. They probably make more in two days of touring than they do in two months of CD sales.

That's the Metal scene at least, where gigs and word of mouth are everything. Of course, there are some bands who get pissy about people downloading their music, but that's still a minority.

weasel fierce
February 4th, 2006, 05:50 PM
Of course, there';s plenty of free music to be had, legally too.
My mp3 and ogg collection is about 200 songs from indie artists (mainly from garageband.com) and about 100 from CD's I own and have ripped

super
February 4th, 2006, 11:14 PM
this is entirely possible.

read this article (http://mute-net.sourceforge.net/howPrivacy.shtml) about internet privacy apps (ip spoofers & request routers) and you'll see how it can be done. it was posted on digg.com.

to quote someone from that site.


When people use proxying [, and anonymizers] and IP spoofing services like MUTE, it explains how people who have never turned on a computer are getting sued for filesharing. Same with people running open Wi-Fi. RIAA doesn't give a sh*t because they have that all powerful IP address and a name to go with it. That is why it is important that more people understand how this works, particularly legal professionals and lawmakers.

xequence
February 5th, 2006, 12:06 AM
Krusbjorn, your country may not have made the word Fjord, but sweedan has Piratbyrån, which makes sweeden cool =O

If only Canada had one of those.


this is entirely possible.

read this article about internet privacy apps (ip spoofers & request routers) and you'll see how it can be done. it was posted on digg.com.

to quote someone from that site.


Quote:
When people use proxying [, and anonymizers] and IP spoofing services like MUTE, it explains how people who have never turned on a computer are getting sued for filesharing. Same with people running open Wi-Fi. RIAA doesn't give a sh*t because they have that all powerful IP address and a name to go with it. That is why it is important that more people understand how this works, particularly legal professionals and lawmakers.

:/

chimera
February 5th, 2006, 12:20 AM
I dont agree at all. Music shouldn't be free unless the people who made it think so. If it is "stealing" or not doesnt really matter. It's about ethics. They made the music, it's up to them if they want you to pay for it or not. If people have problems with calling it "stealing", lets call it "illegal copying" then.

Lots of artists arent able to make a decent amount of money by just doing concerts, especially those doing less popular type of music, say jazz for example. There are loads and loads of music that would never have been produced unless they charged for the CDs. I dont even wanna think how much of my music collection that would never have been made unless people had paid for it.

Sure, the record companies are greedy bastards. But if you like the music and download it illegally, the least you can do is donate the amount of money the artist would have made from a sold CD, directly to the artist. Then you wont sponsor the record company, but you will still help make sure the artist will be able to continue doing what s/he is best at.

Saying "i dont think this should cost money, so i wont pay for it" is just plain stupid. It's not up to you.


So your saying I should pay you to read your post, and then pay you some more to quote it?

P.S.:I'll stop filesharing when they pull my server box from my cold dead hands.

xequence
February 5th, 2006, 12:28 AM
So your saying I should pay you to read your post, and then pay you some more to quote it?

P.S.:I'll stop filesharing when they pull my server box from my cold dead hands.

No! Not at all! You will be able to hear a 15 second clip, or a very distorted whole version before buying.

chimera
February 5th, 2006, 01:01 AM
Please me one good reason besides "those poor artists won't be able to make enough money for their third yacht and a jet plane" piracy should be illegal. I mean, it's called competition. If someone offers it for free, of course everyone who can will get it for free instead of buying. If that's true everywhere else, why should music and movies be an exception (again, using the argument I provided above is not allowed)?

mstlyevil
February 5th, 2006, 01:02 AM
So your saying I should pay you to read your post, and then pay you some more to quote it?

P.S.:I'll stop filesharing when they pull my server box from my cold dead hands.

You are comparing apples and oranges. His post on this thread are on a public forum. When he signed up he agreed that anything he posted would be publicly displayed with no compensation. If he had published a book or a article on a magazine and then you scanned it and posted it on the internet then you violate his right to his intellectual property. Since he made it clear that his book or article was intended to be sold to be distributed you do not have a right to a free copy. Freedom is about a person having control over their own intellectual property. The laws in place protect that freedom. So yes piracy is stealing and a pirate is a thief because they took property that did not belong to them without paying for it.

Malphas
February 5th, 2006, 02:42 AM
Firstly, no piracy is not stealing, it's copyright infringement (in one legal case the RIAA's legal team had to be told by the court to stop using terms such as "stealing" and "theft" because they were inappropriate and incorrect). If you honestly equate copyright infringement to stealing then frankly you're falling victim to the RIAA/MPAA/etc.'s blatant propoganda and distortion of the truth.

Secondly, you could probably download an artist's entire discography for free via p2p and then recompensate them in full by purchasing a single t-shirt from the band's website or at a concert. Copyright laws were created to protect publishers, not writers or artists, and have only become more distorted over the years in favour of record companies. I didn't see such media controversy when they were caught illegaly fixing CD prices over and over again and only given a slap on the wrist each time.

BWF89
February 5th, 2006, 02:49 AM
if you live in the uk, you can get arrested before you do a crime now, ain't that a hoot... so much for innocent until proven guilty
Well if you told a friend that you were going over to Person X's apartment to kill him and he tells the police and they find you knocking on his door with a loaded gun I'd say that's grounds for being arrested.

mstlyevil
February 5th, 2006, 04:02 AM
Firstly, no piracy is not stealing, it's copyright infringement (in one legal case the RIAA's legal team had to be told by the court to stop using terms such as "stealing" and "theft" because they were inappropriate and incorrect). If you honestly equate copyright infringement to stealing then frankly you're falling victim to the RIAA/MPAA/etc.'s blatant propoganda and distortion of the truth.

I could care less about the RIAA/MPAA's propaganda. I also could care less about what some judge thinks it should be called. You could call it any thing you wanted but if you take it without paying for it is stealing. Here is the definition of theft according to the Merriam-Webster Dictionary.


1 a : the act of stealing; specifically : the felonious taking and removing of personal property with intent to deprive the rightful owner of it b : an unlawful taking (as by embezzlement or burglary) of property

Music, Art and Literature are defined as some ones intelectual property. Take note of definition B. An unlawful taking of property. Piracy is just that. It is the unlawful taking of someones property. So I don't need the RIAA, MPAA or the courts to tell me what theft is when theft is a well defined term.


Secondly, you could probably download an artist's entire discography for free via p2p and then recompensate them in full by purchasing a single t-shirt from the band's website or at a concert.

No, even if you did both of those things you still denied them the right to compensation for the use of their property. (That is the music you downloaded and are listening to without permission.) It does not make it right by claiming I might go to a concert or get a t-shirt. Do you actually go to every concert from every band you have in your collection or buy their merchandise? I honestly believe you don't.


Copyright laws were created to protect publishers, not writers or artists, and have only become more distorted over the years in favour of record companies.

Wrong again. Copyright laws have been around well before the big corporate media giants were involved in these industries. They were designed to protect the rights of the person who owns the rights to intellectual property. It just so happens most artist today sign those rights over to the record labels but that has not always been so. Writers on the other hand maintain the rights to their work even to this day. The laws protect the rights of the owner no matter who it is. The owner has a right to determine what terms they want to attach to their property for distribution.


I didn't see such media controversy when they were caught illegaly fixing CD prices over and over again and only given a slap on the wrist each time.

First off two wrongs don't make a right. Second, no one forced you to buy those CD's. You could have boycotted buying them in protest and just done without them. There are alternatives to the big record labels and many bands choose to make their music readily available for free. You could just choose to support bands and labels that treat consumers fair and do not violate the privacy of the consumer with insane DRM and gestapo tactics.

I can tell you while I agree with the RIAA/MPAA on some things, I can not support or condone their tactics or methods. New laws need to be passed to protect consumers from abuses from DRM and to enforce fair use. This is where I take issue with the RIAA/MPAA.

xequence
February 5th, 2006, 05:04 AM
Firstly, no piracy is not stealing, it's copyright infringement (in one legal case the RIAA's legal team had to be told by the court to stop using terms such as "stealing" and "theft" because they were inappropriate and incorrect). If you honestly equate copyright infringement to stealing then frankly you're falling victim to the RIAA/MPAA/etc.'s blatant propoganda and distortion of the truth.

Amen to that.


Secondly, you could probably download an artist's entire discography for free via p2p and then recompensate them in full by purchasing a single t-shirt from the band's website or at a concert. Copyright laws were created to protect publishers, not writers or artists, and have only become more distorted over the years in favour of record companies. I didn't see such media controversy when they were caught illegaly fixing CD prices over and over again and only given a slap on the wrist each time.

Yea, dont the artists get like... 7 cents per CD sold? I could download the 20 pink floyd albums and send them 5$ and it would be more then what they would normally get.


Well if you told a friend that you were going over to Person X's apartment to kill him and he tells the police and they find you knocking on his door with a loaded gun I'd say that's grounds for being arrested.

Me too. But if your friend had a hunch you were gonna kill someone and they knocked down your door to find you sleeping on the couch they couldent arrest you.

mstlyevil
February 5th, 2006, 05:38 AM
Yea, dont the artists get like... 7 cents per CD sold? I could download the 20 pink floyd albums and send them 5$ and it would be more then what they would normally get.

They get at least $1.00 per CD and your biggest selling artist get a lot more than that. How many of these groups that you downloaded their music on P2P have you sent $5.00 to? I bet not one music pirate has sent a red cent to any artist of music they downloaded. Don't insult our intelligence. :D

Iandefor
February 5th, 2006, 06:38 AM
This thread is beating a dead horse.

krusbjorn
February 5th, 2006, 01:22 PM
So your saying I should pay you to read your post, and then pay you some more to quote it?

P.S.:I'll stop filesharing when they pull my server box from my cold dead hands.

Yeah, hand up the money.

M7S
February 5th, 2006, 05:33 PM
I could care less about the RIAA/MPAA's propaganda. I also could care less about what some judge thinks it should be called. You could call it any thing you wanted but if you take it without paying for it is stealing. Here is the definition of theft according to the Merriam-Webster Dictionary.



1 a : the act of stealing; specifically : the felonious taking and removing of personal property with intent to deprive the rightful owner of it b : an unlawful taking (as by embezzlement or burglary) of property

Music, Art and Literature are defined as some ones intelectual property. Take note of definition B. An unlawful taking of property. Piracy is just that. It is the unlawful taking of someones property. So I don't need the RIAA, MPAA or the courts to tell me what theft is when theft is a well defined term.
That's just it you can't "take" someones interlectual property, since it's intellectual property. You can use it or copy it agianst the owners will, but not take it. It's copyright infringement, not stealing. It doesn't necessary make it right or legal, but it's not the same thing as stealing.

mstlyevil
February 5th, 2006, 05:43 PM
That's just it you can't "take" someones interlectual property, since it's intellectual property. You can use it or copy it agianst the owners will, but not take it. It's copyright infringement, not stealing. It doesn't necessary make it right or legal, but it's not the same thing as stealing.

Copyright infringement is theft. It is the same thing as walking into a record store and taking a copy without paying for it. Besides copyright infringement is the act of redistributing someone elses intellectual propery without permission. The act of accepting that copy is paramount to theft. You are stealing hard cold cash from out of the pocket of all those involved in the legal distribution of music including the artist. No matter how you try to spin it theft is still theft.

SuperDiscoMachine V.5.7-3
February 5th, 2006, 06:22 PM
Copyright infringement is theft. It is the same thing as walking into a record store and taking a copy without paying for it. Besides copyright infringement is the act of redistributing someone elses intellectual propery without permission. The act of accepting that copy is paramount to theft. You are stealing hard cold cash from out of the pocket of all those involved in the legal distribution of music including the artist. No matter how you try to spin it theft is still theft.
No, it's not the same, it's fundamentaly different.
In one case you are actually stealing a physical object, that is, you take it and the previous owner doesn't have it anymore.
In the other case you make a copy, that is, you don't take anything away from the owner.

Now this of course doesn't mean that making such a copy without paying although you are supposed to pay is not illegal or immoral, but that's a totally different question. The fact remains that making a copy is not the same as stealing something.

mstlyevil
February 5th, 2006, 06:27 PM
No, it's not the same, it's fundamentaly different.
In one case you are actually stealing a physical object, that is, you take it and the previous owner doesn't have it anymore.
In the other case you make a copy, that is, you don't take anything away from the owner.

Now this of course doesn't mean that making such a copy without paying although you are supposed to pay is not illegal or immoral, but that's a totally different question. The fact remains that making a copy is not the same as stealing something.

But I contend you are physically taking property and that is cash out of the pocket of the owner. So that is why I say making a copy is the same as stealing something. Even the law states that something does not have to be physical to be stolen if it has a cash value. Making a unauthorized copy therfore is the same as stealing.

None of us are going to agree on this so I just say lets agree to disagree and get back to the abuses of the RIAA/MPAA.

SuperDiscoMachine V.5.7-3
February 5th, 2006, 06:34 PM
But I contend you are physically taking property and that is cash out of the pocket of the owner.
You can contend all you want, you are still wrong.
As I said, you can of course still view copying without the owners consent as illegal, so I don't see where your problem is.
And I'm not taking money away from someone, I just don't give him money he is entitled to.

Anyway, the very fact that music, software, etc., can be copied and don't have to be stolen makes p2p possible and a problem to those who own the copyrights, so acknowledging the basic economic properties of "intellectual property" is pretty fundamental, don't you think?

M7S
February 5th, 2006, 06:38 PM
Copyright infringement is theft. It is the same thing as walking into a record store and taking a copy without paying for it. Besides copyright infringement is the act of redistributing someone elses intellectual propery without permission. The act of accepting that copy is paramount to theft. You are stealing hard cold cash from out of the pocket of all those involved in the legal distribution of music including the artist. No matter how you try to spin it theft is still theft.
If I go into the record store and take a cd someone looses money (the owner of the record shop or a insurence company or whoever. If I copy someone elses intellectual property which I never intended to buy noone looses anything (well ofcource the owner of the intellectual property might loose his temper and I might loose my morals but no monetary losses ;))

I agree with you (at least to some extent) that copyright infringement is wrong. I have leagally bought every peace of music I have on my computer. But just the fact that copyright infringement might be wrong doesn't make it theft.

Regards,
M7S

krusbjorn
February 5th, 2006, 08:06 PM
No, it's not the same, it's fundamentaly different.
In one case you are actually stealing a physical object, that is, you take it and the previous owner doesn't have it anymore.
In the other case you make a copy, that is, you don't take anything away from the owner.

Now this of course doesn't mean that making such a copy without paying although you are supposed to pay is not illegal or immoral, but that's a totally different question. The fact remains that making a copy is not the same as stealing something.

Ultimately would mean that if you go into a record store and steal a CD, the value of what you steal is only the price someone paid to physically make that CD, i.e. produce the empty disc and plastic case, burn the disc and print whatever "booklet" that comes with it.

Anyways, I agree that this thread is "like beating a dead horse", because if the word "stealing" can be applied to illegal downloads or not doesnt really matter at all. It's still, as i stated earlier, about ethics and moral, not about the english vocabulary.

chimera
February 5th, 2006, 09:35 PM
The fact is, you can't call it stealing because you don't take anything from anyone, you just copy it. As for that copyright infringment, well, as I said before, I'm not going to buy some publisher who does nothing but steal money from artists a third yacht.

Zotova
February 5th, 2006, 09:55 PM
The fact is, you can't call it stealing because you don't take anything from anyone, you just copy it. As for that copyright infringement, well, as I said before, I'm not going to buy some publisher who does nothing but steal money from artists a third yacht.

You can mince words as much as you like.

If you copy music it is illegal, call it theft, copyright infringement, whatever you like. You are still breaking the law and you are a criminal - its as simple as that.

mips
February 5th, 2006, 09:58 PM
I'm sorry but your reasoning is childish, copyright infringement is basically stealing, at the end of the day you hurt the artist.

I know record companies are loathsome but two wrongs dont make a right, period !!!

chimera
February 5th, 2006, 10:30 PM
I'm sorry but your reasoning is childish, copyright infringement is basically stealing, at the end of the day you hurt the artist.

I know record companies are loathsome but two wrongs dont make a right, period !!!

It's not stealing because the music/movie file is still on the server after I download it. If the server admin is offering it for free, it's his crime, not mine (as much as I may support his cause, I'm in no position to be held responsible for it).

xequence
February 6th, 2006, 12:03 AM
I'm sorry but your reasoning is childish, copyright infringement is basically stealing, at the end of the day you hurt the artist.

Situation 1: I download the music and enjoy it. Im happy.
Situation 2: I dont download the music, I dont buy it. Im not happy.

Seems to be the artist is in the same situation for both of those. The only person it effects is me.

chimera
February 6th, 2006, 06:35 AM
Situation 1: I download the music and enjoy it. Im happy.
Situation 2: I dont download the music, I dont buy it. Im not happy.

Seems to be the artist is in the same situation for both of those. The only person it effects is me.

Well said.

WildTangent
February 6th, 2006, 06:41 AM
Situation 1: I download the music and enjoy it. Im happy.
Situation 2: I dont download the music, I dont buy it. Im not happy.

Seems to be the artist is in the same situation for both of those. The only person it effects is me.
Wow...well put xequence, it makes total sense.

-Wild

SuperDiscoMachine V.5.7-3
February 6th, 2006, 08:01 AM
I'm sorry but your reasoning is childish, copyright infringement is basically stealing, at the end of the day you hurt the artist.

I'm sorry, but your reasoning is childish. You mix moral issues (it hurts the artist) with the accurate description of what is done (that is, a file is copied, not stolen) and insist on calling something stealing that isn't stealing because you want to make clear that it is morally wrong.

So again, it is not stealing, but that it isn't of course does not mean that it isn't wrong, immoral, whatever. However, acting as if is stealing makes an informed discussion about the issue impossible.

krusbjorn
February 6th, 2006, 11:31 AM
Situation 1: I download the music and enjoy it. Im happy.
Situation 2: I dont download the music, I dont buy it. Im not happy.

Seems to be the artist is in the same situation for both of those. The only person it effects is me.


...as long as you only download the music you never would have bought, and buy the rest.

mips
February 6th, 2006, 06:03 PM
Listen, whether you call it stealing, piracy, duplication or copyright infrigment does not really make a difference. You are depriving someone of an income they are legally entitled to for the work they produced. So screw moral issues and look at it from a legal perspective. Next you are going to talk your way around this and then we become a society without the rule of law and anarchy prevails.

If you want to justify your actions based on the technical use of language then so be it.

If you follow the above logic then it's ok to counterfeit money, copy books, falsify art. Next murder, rape and whatever would be justifyable as people die anyway and rape is just sex....

krusbjorn
February 6th, 2006, 06:08 PM
Listen, whether you call it stealing, piracy, duplication or copyright infrigment does not really make a difference. You are depriving someone of an income they are legally entitled to for the work they produced. So screw moral issues and look at it from a legal perspective. Next you are going to talk your way around this and then we become a society without the rule of law and anarchy prevails.

If you want to justify your actions based on the technical use of language then so be it.

Couldnt agree more.

SuperDiscoMachine V.5.7-3
February 6th, 2006, 07:28 PM
Listen, whether you call it stealing, piracy, duplication or copyright infrigment does not really make a difference. You are depriving someone of an income they are legally entitled to for the work they produced. So screw moral issues and look at it from a legal perspective. Next you are going to talk your way around this and then we become a society without the rule of law and anarchy prevails.

If you want to justify your actions based on the technical use of language then so be it.

If you follow the above logic then it's ok to counterfeit money, copy books, falsify art. Next murder, rape and whatever would be justifyable as people die anyway and rape is just sex....
I don't know if this was a reaction to my post, but if it was:
How many times do you want me to repeat that making the point that it's not stealing but copying does not in any way make a moral or legal judgement? It's simply stating a basic fact.

So let me repeat it, pointing out that it's copying does not mean that one has to think it isn't illegal, imoral, or whatever.

And you should really tune down you rhetoric. Just because people pointed out that you are wrong about a basic issue does _not_ mean they employ a kind of logic that could also be used to justify rape or will lead to anarchy and the breakdown of the rule of law. Claiming this is pathetic, to put it mildly.

mips
February 6th, 2006, 09:05 PM
Just look at post#13 and you will see that people are trying to justify their actions based on linguistic technicalities.

Technically speaking stealing is not the same as copyright infringement and are not terms inter-used in a court of law for example. The terms Copyright Infringement, Piracy and Theft are commonly used by the average public to describe Copyright Infringment albeit incorrect.

So technically speaking you are correct, copyright infringment is not stealing,theft,piracy.

ow50
February 6th, 2006, 09:55 PM
An RMS quote might be appropriate here.

Publishers often refer to prohibited copying as "piracy." In this way, they imply that illegal copying is ethically equivalent to attacking ships on the high seas, kidnapping and murdering the people on them.

If you don't believe that illegal copying is just like kidnapping and murder, you might prefer not to use the word "piracy" to describe it. Neutral terms such as "prohibited copying" or "unauthorized copying" are available for use instead. Some of us might even prefer to use a positive term such as "sharing information with your neighbor."
http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/words-to-avoid.html#Piracy

Harry_Sack
February 18th, 2006, 10:02 PM
they're mafia anyway

Krigl
February 21st, 2006, 08:02 AM
as I said before, I'm not going to buy some publisher who does nothing but steal money from artists a third yacht.
Ugh, were there be not your sig and avatar, I'd think you're a Madonna listener. I don't know which artist you actually mean but people buying yachts are usually not artists but manufacturers of cultural "fast food" (at least to me). I know hundreds of great bands and only several of them could be called rich, in fact most of them has some normal job cause they can't live just from music.
As others picked out before me, the thing is if AUTHOR not you chooses his work to be free or not. Or at least if he (she) has that attitude like "Yeah, I want my songs paid but WTF they wouldn't buy it anyway, so maybe they'll come to gig and buy it some years later and screw my company, they're ripping me much more".

Rev. Nathan
February 21st, 2006, 08:33 AM
I'm not worried.

Really.

They keep making mistakes; suing the wrong people, raising rates and lowering artist benefits, allowing Kevin Federline to make music...

Obviously, the court system is just going to get tired of them, and when a counter-sue comes along, too many people will be on the bandwagon. I think the RIAA is aware of this, and is just getting as many benefits as they can before they get canned.