View Full Version : Crackdown on Internet piracy - Operation Site Down
bored2k
July 5th, 2005, 05:49 PM
Today, the Department of Justice (DoJ) announced a huge crackdown on 11 nations, with computer raids in United States, Australia, Belgium, Canada, Denmark, France, Germany, Israel, the Netherlands, Portugal and the United Kingdom. "Operation Site Down" busted "Warez" group leaders and members, from RiSCiSO, Myth, TDA, LND, Goodfellaz, Hoodlum, Vengeance, Centropy, Wasted Time to TUN, and others. Apparently, an FBI agent was working undercover, being a "Site Op" of 4 gbit "topsites" with more than 27TB of pirated material. Griffen, his "scene" nick, played a crucial role on the busts. More than 70 searches in the United States and 20 overseas were executed, in just 24 hours!
More on this here (http://www.cdfreaks.com/news/12035) .
I'm amazed by how fast and silent they did these arrests !
aragorn2909
July 5th, 2005, 06:06 PM
Microsoft Canada's website estimates over 2.2 million websites " offer, link to, or otherwise reference" warez/appz. So lets take the numbers Operation Site Down is offering with a grain of salt. 11 nations involved in a crackdown may sound good on paper, but not one nation from Asia involved in this? Its one drop in an ocean of piracy. However, if this concerns people, perhaps its even more reason to migrate to open source?
As a side note, I think the first sentence should have read "Today, the Department of Justice (DoJ), in conjunction with the MPAA..."
KiwiNZ
July 6th, 2005, 12:28 AM
Good work
carlc
July 6th, 2005, 02:27 AM
They are trying to fight a battle that they can not win.
TravisNewman
July 6th, 2005, 02:29 AM
That's incredible. Not in a good way, not in a bad way, just freakin' incredible.
KiwiNZ
July 6th, 2005, 02:35 AM
They are trying to fight a battle that they can not win.
Its a fight that needs to won. The cost of piracy is huge. The problem is people think its a game. Its not.
gil-galad
July 6th, 2005, 02:39 AM
I would be suprised if Microsoft ever cracked down on piracy in the US. They are pretty clever about that.
bored2k
July 6th, 2005, 02:42 AM
That's incredible. Not in a good way, not in a bad way, just freakin' incredible.
Indeed. I was joking with a friend on how the crackdown looks like it was sponsored by Valve (basically every -or most- group that posted HL2 was caught).
Maybe it's an almost insignificant amount, but it's a start. Eleven nations teamed up on this operation. Teamwork people! When was the last time you heard 10+ nations got together and agreed on doing something, then doing it as planned ?
P.S. - They needed no Live-8 campaign to start busting pirates.. that says a lot about our world's puppeteers.
bored2k
July 6th, 2005, 02:47 AM
I would be suprised if Microsoft ever cracked down on piracy in the US. They are pretty clever about that.
Microsoft would never crackdown on piracy. They are not in any way a police authority. This is not a Van Damme flick where a random guy starts chasing bad guys. We have people for that. They might help pointing them the right way, but they can't arrest a squirrel.
Its a fight that needs to won. The cost of piracy is huge. The problem is people think its a game. Its not.
Totally agree. We need to put ourselves in the position of the developers and creators. How would I feel if some guy decided to sell a movie I spend 3 years of my life making for 2 dollars weeks before the release (SW: EPisode 2) ? Not good.
gil-galad
July 6th, 2005, 02:51 AM
Totally agree. We need to put ourselves in the position of the developers and creators. How would I feel if some guy decided to sell a movie I spend 3 years of my life making for 2 dollars weeks before the release (SW: EPisode 2) ? Not good.
Well If I milked the money cow that is known as Star Wars. I would care less about piracy. ;-)
On a serious note, why would you care!? If you are doing it for art, you should be happy that it is in the public's hands. If you are doing it for money, you would still earn more than you deserve (episode II). Why would you care?
MetalMusicAddict
July 6th, 2005, 02:59 AM
Its a fight that needs to won. The cost of piracy is huge. The problem is people think its a game. Its not.
I agree. Along with a couple of rule changes in the consumers favor. ;)
Big Venus
July 6th, 2005, 03:07 AM
That's good...
Like my instructor once said if when he want to go buy Microsoft Office Professional Edition costing $500+ dollars, "... Look at this, imagine what it would cost if it wasn't pirated..." It would cost like 50 to 100 dollars.
So boys and girls in FBI, you have to win this battle.
gil-galad
July 6th, 2005, 03:12 AM
That's good...
Like my instructor once said if when he want to go buy Microsoft Office Professional Edition costing $500+ dollars, "... Look at this, imagine what it would cost if it wasn't pirated..." It would cost like 50 to 100 dollars.
So boys and girls in FBI, you have to win this battle.
Actually I disagree. There are probably more copies of Office sold because of piracy than if piracy did not exist. How many people would use Office if they couldn't get it for free? Not many.
Thats the terrible thing about software piracy. People spend their free time working to provide the world with free software like Open Office and linux, but people would rather pirate expensive software.
bored2k
July 6th, 2005, 03:34 AM
On a serious note, why would you care!? If you are doing it for art, you should be happy that it is in the public's hands. If you are doing it for money, you would still earn more than you deserve (episode II). Why would you care?
So you actually like getting robbed ?
It doesn't matter how rich I would be, if I earned 10 bucks I want my 10 bucks, not 8, not 9, not 9.999, i want 10. It's whats right. Besides, regardless of the fact that authorX did his stuff for art or for the money, it's HIS property and he should be allowed to do whatever he feels like. It's not fair to do whatever we feel like with other people's work. If the movie producers would want their work to be freely published, they would release them under GPL. If they decide that they want to squeeze every inch of money out of they're fans, so be it. Don't make choices for them.
egon spengler
July 6th, 2005, 03:40 AM
That's good...
Like my instructor once said if when he want to go buy Microsoft Office Professional Edition costing $500+ dollars, "... Look at this, imagine what it would cost if it wasn't pirated..." It would cost like 50 to 100 dollars.
i don't think i believe that
KiwiNZ
July 6th, 2005, 03:41 AM
Software piracy is theft , end of story , no matter what spin is put on it by the pirates , it is theft .
Sye d'Burns
July 6th, 2005, 03:54 AM
i don't think i believe that
50-100 bucks? I don't think I believe that either.
I see the point the professor was getting at but he missed the barn. In actuality, any savings by a company made by reduced privacy will go into the coffers and stock dividends, not into mark-downs. Shareholders wouldn't like that too much.
It's not greed, it's just the way it is.
bored2k
July 6th, 2005, 03:55 AM
Software piracy is theft , end of story , no matter what spin is put on it by the pirates , it is theft .
The act or an instance of stealing; larceny.
The unlawful taking and removing of another's personal property with the intent of permanently depriving the owner; theft.
There's no cute way to put it. It is wrong and should be stopped.
TravisNewman
July 6th, 2005, 04:06 AM
bored-- not trying to be a **** here, but didn't you download a lot of albums a few weeks back?
I don't care one way or the other. I have little to no need to pirate because I use open source, but the system is corrupt, and pirating is a smack in the face to fight the corrupt system. There are other ways to fight it, but it is one way.
I think piracy needs to be stopped, IF AND ONLY IF the system is reformed. Bands that record albums nowadays, with your typical recording contract, get 13 cents per cd. That's ridiculous. You aren't hurting the artist, you're hurting the corrupt system.
I don't advocate piracy, but I don't condone it. I will never support it and I would never let it slide here for MANY reasons, but there are more aspects than "It's stealing." What the record companies do to artists is stealing. Robin Hood stole from the rich and gave to the poor and is one of the most famous heroes in literature-- there are various moral debates you could get into over piracy, just as there are with Robin Hood. I know it's a weird analogy, but my point is, let's not make it black and white.
KiwiNZ
July 6th, 2005, 04:21 AM
If someone agrees to sell an apple for 2c then thay have executed a rightto make a decision to sell for 2c. If someone comes and takes that apple they can not then make the decision to sell for 2c. That is why I dont agree that its ok to steal because the recording companies only pay $x fto the artist.
Many a crime doth committed in the name of revolution in the cause of change .
manicka
July 6th, 2005, 04:21 AM
There's an interesting article called ' Why Piracy Hurts Open Source' in the latest issue of Tux Magazine (http://www.tuxmagazine.com) that has an interesting spin on this whole issue
TravisNewman
July 6th, 2005, 04:25 AM
" Many a crime doth committed in the name of revolution in the cause of change ."
Question is, which is worse, the crimes committed, or the need for revolution?
Another question, if the law is corrupt, is the crime bad?
Again, I'm not advocating anything, just providing food for thought.
KiwiNZ
July 6th, 2005, 04:25 AM
My mother had a sayng ..... Two wrongs do not make a right
TravisNewman
July 6th, 2005, 04:29 AM
My mother had a sayng ..... Two wrongs do not make a right
I just edited my post. To expand, "wrong" is a grey term. Lawful isn't always right, what's right isn't always lawful. What Ghandi did was unlawful. What Nazi soldiers did was lawful. Extremes, I know, but more food for thought ;)
Sye d'Burns
July 6th, 2005, 04:33 AM
There's an interesting article called ' Why Piracy Hurts Open Source' in the latest issue of Tux Magazine (http://www.tuxmagazine.com) that has an interesting spin on this whole issue
Looks pretty interesting. Now if I could only figure out how and why that site disables my scrollwheel while viewing it. Freaky :P
KiwiNZ
July 6th, 2005, 04:34 AM
Did Ghandi take from the British?
Did Mandela take from whites?
No they changed what was wrong passively. They targeted the system not the individual.
TravisNewman
July 6th, 2005, 04:37 AM
Did Ghandi take from the British?
Did Mandela take from whites?
No they changed what was wrong passively. They targeted the system not the individual.
Well that's kinda my point. RIAA and the MPAA ARE the system, and that's what you're hurting when you pirate music or movies.
KiwiNZ
July 6th, 2005, 04:48 AM
Well that's kinda my point. RIAA and the MPAA ARE the system, and that's what you're hurting when you pirate music or movies.
Now there is where it is all wrong, by Pirating you are not just hurting the RIAA and the MPAA you are hurting the Artists , the Store owners , workers in the factories, the carriers ,and in the end yourself.
But I dont believe for one minute that 99% (not meant as an accurate percentage based on scientific research) of those who pirate think about a noble quest when doing it , they are simply after something for nothing and dont want to even pay a "fair" price for it
WildTangent
July 6th, 2005, 04:50 AM
i think you should all switch to decafe, and calm down, this kind of stuff is usually closed on my forum, and the participants told to take it to MSN or AIM or whatever. pirating will never stop. i know its wrong, but i do it, and many others do so as well. as long as people can get away with it, they will continue to do it, the sad thing is, someone, somewhere will always be able to get away with it, until we all live in 1984 that is ;)
-Wild
KiwiNZ
July 6th, 2005, 04:55 AM
Decafe yuuuuck .
Nothing wrong with a good debate .
There is no name calling and its not personall. If it were I would get my trust padlock out .
KiwiNZ
July 6th, 2005, 04:57 AM
I lived in 1984 , it was ummm 21 years ago , damm I am getting old
TravisNewman
July 6th, 2005, 04:57 AM
It's apparently not hurting the industry though-- CD sales have gotten better and better in exponential rates the more popular file sharing becomes. I think filesharing helps because it lets people hear the music before they buy. That's a grey area though-- there's no way to prove or disprove it.
But overall I agree with Wild-- there's nothing that can stop it, and living in 1984 would suck.
Off topic-- Wild, what's your forum?
WildTangent
July 6th, 2005, 05:07 AM
check your inbox thumb ;) :P
-Wild
gil-galad
July 6th, 2005, 05:37 AM
The point of copyright is to advance the arts, not to fatten pockets. Have the arts fallen as a result of pirating? I would say not.
I am starting to disprove of software piracy because I can see the negative effect it has on the industry. But can you say the same for movies? I don't know for certain, but I don't see it.
In any case its a dark day when sharing can be readily seen as "stealing"
KiwiNZ
July 6th, 2005, 05:44 AM
"In any case its a dark day when sharing can be readily seen as "stealing"
So we should share the Orchardists Apples , share the farmers grain,
gil-galad
July 6th, 2005, 05:47 AM
If we could break the bread and copy it to get fourty baskets full, then yes. Since grain and apples have a limited supply, then no.
Is that not the whole idea of open source?
Software can be copied with no loss, therefore in many ways, it has no value. Everyone on earth can have it and I can still have all I want of it. Not true with food.
KiwiNZ
July 6th, 2005, 05:57 AM
Those who chose to release their work under open source have chosen to do so.
Those who have it stolen have had the choice taken away from them.
gil-galad
July 6th, 2005, 06:07 AM
Those who chose to release their work under open source have chosen to do so.
Those who have it stolen have had the choice taken away from them.
Correct, which is why I am hesitant to support software piracy. But is there any such groups of people that make free movies? Not really.
If I buy an apple, plant the seed, and give apples to friends, it is sharing.
If I buy a movie, make a copy, and give movies to friends, it is stealing.
That is because one is governed by copyright. Luckily, God does not claim copyright.
KiwiNZ
July 6th, 2005, 06:12 AM
But is there any such groups of people that make free movies? Not really.
No there isn't , they have chosen not to , so that choice should be not taken from them by theft.
jeremy
July 6th, 2005, 06:14 AM
I certainly do not condone software piracy, I think that the pirates who are trying to hurt companies by their piracy are, in fact, helping them by distributing their products.
In fact I cannot understand why anyone bothers with pirated products any more, when there are so many excellent open source offerings.
gil-galad
July 6th, 2005, 06:15 AM
No there isn't , they have chosen not to , so that choice should be not taken from them by theft.
However, copyright enfringement is not theft. When I read books in the library, am I stealing from the publisher? When I watch a movie at a friends house, am I stealing that movie? When my friend plays music, I am stealing that music?
And don't take everything I say seriously, I am playing Devil's Advocate.
KiwiNZ
July 6th, 2005, 06:24 AM
If I buy an apple, plant the seed, and give apples to friends, it is sharing.
If I buy a movie, make a copy, and give movies to friends, it is stealing.
That is because one is governed by copyright. Luckily, God does not claim copyright.[/QUOTE]
If you buy an apple you buy the seed , if you plant the seed and grow more apples you have the choice to sell those apples or give them away.If those apples were stolen , you have lost the choice.
However you only have the right to have the apples the farmer gives you , not the rest on the trees.He did give you the right to reproduce as he did not remove the seeds
If you buy a movie , you buy a movie .you have not purchased as well a movie seed . Therefore the sellers choice was for you to have just the movie.
If the seller wished you to share , he would not protect it but would enable you to reproduce it, thus selling a movie seed.
A Farmer fences his crop, a Shop keeper locks his shop, A software creator applies a copyright, but they are all the same thing.
KiwiNZ
July 6th, 2005, 06:29 AM
However, copyright enfringement is not theft. When I read books in the library, am I stealing from the publisher? When I watch a movie at a friends house, am I stealing that movie? When my friend plays music, I am stealing that music?
And don't take everything I say seriously, I am playing Devil's Advocate.
Not the same at all, if a publisher places their books in a library they have made that choice and have said it is alright to borrow my book and read it , if you copy the book , that is not correct.
The same with a movie from the Video library.The same with music . The creator or publishers has given their consent by choice for you to listen to it and to listen to it in private with your friends, but not to copy and give it to your friends. They have spelt out their wishes very clearly in the copyright.
WildTangent
July 6th, 2005, 06:36 AM
alot of you seem to be trying to justify pirating, why waste your time doing so, just do it anyway. yes its wrong, but unless you run a huge warez ring, the chances of being prosecuted, or even caught are slim
-Wild
nocturn
July 6th, 2005, 08:05 AM
Good work
Yes. If they kill piracy, then everyone will be forced to pay for windows/office etc.
900 € (windows + office) or 0 € (Ubuntu).... Most people need 0.0002 seconds to consider.
KiwiNZ
July 6th, 2005, 08:38 AM
Yes. If they kill piracy, then everyone will be forced to pay for windows/office etc.
900 € (windows + office) or 0 € (Ubuntu).... Most people need 0.0002 seconds to consider.
That choice is here now so I don't really get you with this one.
If you are saying all those who steal windows could have Ubuntu for free and not break the law then yes you are so right.
Open source is the rightful alternative to theft.
Sye d'Burns
July 6th, 2005, 09:16 AM
That choice is here now so I don't really get you with this one.
If you are saying all those who steal windows could have Ubuntu for free and not break the law then yes you are so right.
Open source is the rightful alternative to theft.
I think the point he's getting at is that while the option is here now, the masses are barely aware of what linux can offer. That's assuming they're aware of linux at all in more than an abstract term.
For example, if I were had to plonk down several hundred dollars for an office program and I were on a budget, I might start seriously looking for an alternative. Why do that now if I can just get it from a friend, family member, etc?
Piracy is an enabler to the weak in mind or the weak in will.
WirelessMike
July 6th, 2005, 02:51 PM
Some excellent points from both sides. I'm not sure "stealing" has, as yet, been proven relative to this subject, but most seem to get it.
There's a definition of stealing earlier in the thread. The hard part is comparing that definition with what is actually occuring. Many here have said that it is simply stealing-- No question about it. Unfortunately, the government and lawyers of the US haven't been able to prove that. They have been successful only at convicting for copyright infringement, not stealing or any such. If you see something of measurable value or obtain a valuable service and do not pay for it, it is stealing. However, if you buy something then make a copy of it and give it away, you have not actually stolen anything according to the law and cannot be convicted of "theft." No, my friends, it is not stealing as defined by our justice system, though I do believe it to be theft of another sort.
I would argue that it's more closely related to counterfeit, forgery or plagiarism. These are all crimes, but not enforceable to the extent necessary to combat piracy. I once defended piracy as a means to an end, but that was a long time ago. I can't endorse the willful theft of another's ideas... the fruit of his or her labor.
Before we start pointing fingers, though, and laying down judgement on each other, I think a reality check is in order. If you ever... EVER taped a television show, such as Seinfeld, or the news, or a major sports event, and let someone borrow it, you are guilty of this sort of crime. The only difference is that millions of people are getting it over the internet instead of just your dad or your neighbor. I don't know if you're aware of this, but the FCC intended for HDTV to be broadcast encoded, making it impossible to record on common media (http://www.cdfreaks.com/news/10062), especially PC's (http://www.pcpro.co.uk/news/69839/us-judges-agree-fcc-has-no-rights-pursue-hdtv-broadcast-flag-regs.html) . This was recently declined by the US Courts (http://www.boingboing.net/2005/05/06/vtv_day_we_won_the_b.html) , but you can see how it relates if it rates this level of consideration. By the way-- The FCC has not given up this fight yet, though it appears this will not come to pass (more on this subject at the EFF website (http://www.eff.org/broadcastflag/) as it develops).
That being said, I believe sharing on this level has indeed hurt the economy, though perhaps not so bad as many would have you believe. The biggest noise comes from the RIAA and the MPAA, of course. and I believe the MPAA has a genuine, legitimate reason to be upset enough to pursue legal action, though I'm not sure the recording industry has done much to convince me they're hurting bad enough to sue (ever seen MTV's "Cribs"?). Still, it is inherently wrong and I would contend that its only defense is that mentioned by Thumb as being a means of revolution to check industries that inflate prices far above cost.
After all, artists aren't the ONLY folks who have been getting ripped off, and they know it. It's not against the law to charge high prices for cheap products, but maybe it ought to be.
What's really happening as a result of piracy, though? Have cd prices come down? Software prices? Nah... Folks are being hurt. Small-scale producers can't make a dime and neither can their artists. 15-year-olds are being sued. Is it worth it? If all it accomplished was to fuel the open source movement and produce itunes, then hasn't it already served any purpose it really can? Be sure to check the EFF (http://www.eff.org/) from time to time to get another perspective of what's going on and how it can effect you. I may not agree with the EFF on every point, but they do help keep things in perspective and re-focus on whose rights are being protected.
I think it was well-said that anyone intelligent enough to know how to download pirated music, software, etc. should be intelligent enough to explore open-source alternatives and appreciate the value of online music "stores" such as itunes. And if the movie is good enough to wait hours to download, it's good enough to buy-- They aren't THAT expensive! And I personally love the theatre experience, regardless that it is a bit overpriced.
aragorn2909
July 6th, 2005, 06:24 PM
Before we start pointing fingers, though, and laying down judgement on each other, I think a reality check is in order. If you ever... EVER taped a television show, such as Seinfeld, or the news, or a major sports event, and let someone borrow it, you are guilty of this sort of crime.
We are going to consider this as "stealing"? Even if it is "stealing" of another sorts? So if I record a song off the radio onto a cassette tape, is that also "stealing"? Why don't we just say that if I just WATCH the new episode of showX, hear a joke thats funny to me, and share that joke at the watercooler the next day, that I am also "stealing". Maybe just copyright infringement? Pure insanity, but that sounds like the road your attempting to lead me down.
Let's separate, for sake of argument, software from media (film, music, tv) for this. First off, in Canada, it is LEGAL for me to download copyrighted material for personal use. It is, however, ILLEGAL for me to upload copyrighted material. It is LEGAL for me to record off of television for personal use onto blank media. It is LEGAL for me to back-up my digital media (cd/dvd) for personal use. In fact, every blank vcr cassette or cassette tape I purchase to record onto in this country has an extra charge built in, so that the Canadian versions of the MPAA/RIAA get paid. The last I heard, the same surcharge was going to be built in to blank optical media as well. Stealing? Absolutely not. The Artists and the organizations that represent them are remunerated. I mean, really, I purchased my computer, my internet service, my tv, my dvds, my cds, my dvd player, my cd player, my car, the cd/mp3 player in my car. I OWN all of them. They are mine to do with as I please.
Secondly, in terms of software, I refuse to be labelled a "pirate". I prefer the term "tester". I test software, and if I like it, I buy it. If I don't like it, I get rid of it. This is where Linux comes into play for me. Almost every piece of software running on my box is FREE. What isn't, I've tested and eventually paid for or got rid of. Moral dillema? Not a chance.
WildTangent
July 6th, 2005, 07:10 PM
Secondly, in terms of software, I refuse to be labelled a "pirate". I prefer the term "tester". I test software, and if I like it, I buy it. If I don't like it, I get rid of it. This is where Linux comes into play for me. Almost every piece of software running on my box is FREE. What isn't, I've tested and eventually paid for or got rid of. Moral dillema? Not a chance.
im sorta like you i guess, if i like a piece of software a lot, i usually buy it. when i played doom 3 for a couple days, i uninstalled it, and then went to the store and bought it. i tried out vmware last night with a 30 day trial license, i intend on buying it (although the $200 price tag does seem steep >_>) i dont buy every piece of software i continue using, so maybe im not as noble as you :P
-Wild
WirelessMike
July 6th, 2005, 07:55 PM
Originally posted by Aragorn2909
We are going to consider this as "stealing"? Even if it is "stealing" of another sorts?
Certainly not. That's my point exactly. Copyright infringement is not stealing, per se, though it is a form of theft. Why else would those in the US pursued by the RIAA be subpoena'd on the basis of content uploaded and not downloaded? This isn't just interpretation. If the best lawyers in the US and the FCC can't define it as stealing, how can we hope to?
Originally posted by Aragorn2909
Why don't we just say that if I just WATCH the new episode of showX, hear a joke thats funny to me, and share that joke at the watercooler the next day, that I am also "stealing". Maybe just copyright infringement? Pure insanity, but that sounds like the road your attempting to lead me down.
See that's the catch-- Just watching doesn't give anyone legal grounds to accuse you of copyright infringement (you know-- I probably didn't really address that earlier). You have to "share" it, "loan" it, or otherwise give it away. Since you didn't benefit financially, nor did you "steal" it, you're not guilty of anything more than copyright infringement. Jokes you hear, by the way, are rarely preceded by a copyright warning, either per joke, book of jokes, or comedian with credit for originality-- but I'm not saying anything you don't already know.
Though it may seem "pure insanity" (and it does), it has been successful in our courts. Many have already been sued for uploading content and sharing it on the web under the guise of "copyright infringement." More disturbing is the obvious open door for lawyers to define other, more "harmless" sharing as "copyright infringement."
Some of your other comments suggest that my opinion is based on worldwide file sharing. Quite the contrary-- I speak from American experience, specifically, and my comments are aimed at US law. I am quite unaware of how Canada perceives this issue and make no comment suggesting that I would assume they are in any way comparable to the US. I appreciate the enlightenment, however, on Canada's take-- Very interesting and I'll want to learn more.
Lastly-- I never labelled you a "pirate." How you conduct your affairs online and what you download or upload is very much your business, and from what I've read of your posts so far, you appear to conduct your business quite professionally. I certainly meant no offense to you. If by my assertion regarding sharing taped tv shows you feel I have labelled you a pirate, you may find some comfort in the fact that with the same assertion I have labelled myself a pirate, as well as anyone owning a vcr.
My point is-- Software or music/movie swapping should be stopped of the user's own volition, not by our government and courts, but since the courts are now involved, it might be less painful and more productive for everyone if we all picked our battles more wisely. I don't think our opinions are really so different, I see your point and agree. The only difference is that I perceive an ethical problem with sharing some material, but not necessarily a legal one.
On a lighter note: You've almost got post number 100... Congrats!
aragorn2909
July 6th, 2005, 07:57 PM
i dont buy every piece of software i continue using, so maybe im not as noble as you :P
-Wild
I think that may be the first time I've been accused of that! :-P Seriously, though, I don't think its really a question of nobility. My "job", as a citizen of a democratic society, is twofold. Vigilance, and Dissidence. If I may stand on my soap-box for a second here....
" We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. --That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security."
Words to live by, regardless of where you live.
aragorn2909
July 6th, 2005, 08:29 PM
Why else would those in the US pursued by the RIAA be subpoena'd on the basis of content uploaded and not downloaded? This isn't just interpretation. If the best lawyers in the US and the FCC can't define it as stealing, how can we hope to?
Ok, post 100, make it count...
Taken from the RIAA website concerning the new 784 lawsuits filed against file sharers in the U.S.
"Mitch Bainwol, Chairman and CEO of the RIAA. “If there was any doubt left, there should now be none – individuals who download music without permission are breaking the law."
So here we see that the John Doe suits are indeed about downloading as well.
Some of your other comments suggest that my opinion is based on worldwide file sharing. Quite the contrary-- I make it very clear that I speak from American experience, specifically, and that my comments are aimed at US law. I am quite unaware of how Canada perceives this issue and make no comment suggesting that I would assume they are in any way comparable to the US.
To be sure, what happens in the U.S. on this matter, very much affects the way the rest of the World deals with it. Eleven total nations acting together, with the DOJ. Unbeleivable American influence.
If by my assertion regarding sharing taped tv shows you feel I have labelled you a pirate, you may find some comfort in the fact that with the same assertion I have labelled myself a pirate, as well as anyone owning a vcr.
Thats the thing, I don't consider either of us "pirates" or "thieves" on this issue. We purchased our vcrs, vcr cassettes, dvd burners, whatever. We also paid our cable/satellite providers to view the show. The artists and networks and whoever else are getting paid. No theft, no copyright infringement (as long as we aren't rebroadcasting for a profit).
My point is-- Software or music/movie swapping should be stopped of the user's own volition, not by our government and courts
Agreed 100%
WirelessMike
July 6th, 2005, 08:41 PM
Originally posted by Aragorn2909:
"Mitch Bainwol, Chairman and CEO of the RIAA. “If there was any doubt left, there should now be none – individuals who download music without permission are breaking the law."
So here we see that the John Doe suits are indeed about downloading as well.
I stand corrected. Perhaps this applies only to music? I'll have to research some more.
I agree with your assertion regarding America's role in setting world standards, though I am reassured by Canada's unique approach and hope that others will define the problem for themselves, as well. This latest news regarding european software patents is very reassuring.
Congrats on number 100! I see you now have "Way too much Ubuntu"!
aragorn2909
July 6th, 2005, 08:59 PM
I stand corrected. Perhaps this applies only to music? I'll have to research some more.
I agree with your assertion regarding America's role in setting world standards, though I am reassured by Canada's unique approach and hope that others will define the problem for themselves, as well. This latest news regarding european software patents is very reassuring.
Congrats on number 100! I see you now have "Way too much Ubuntu"!
With the recent US Supreme Court decision concerning p2p networks, and the RIAA assertion that downloading is illegal, I'm also very interested in how it will apply to other mediums (movies/tv).
Canadian lawmakers, like their American counterparts, have recently come under pressure to make downloading illegal. Recently a bill was being introduced to do just that, but I haven't seen or heard anything as of late. Hopefully rational minds will prevail and see to the needs/wants of the citizenry.
In terms of the European decision on Software Patents, kudos! The world is watching this one for sure.
KiwiNZ
July 6th, 2005, 11:40 PM
To catch up on some points
Recording Music/TV Programs
That is permited under the copyright and the laws of most nations to allow time shifting . In other words record now watch later.
It does not permit you to then make copies of that material and distrubute for gain or not .
Software testing
Most software manufacturers provide trial software for you to test, so sorry that reason for piracy is invalid.
Backup copies
That depends largely where you live and the user licence. But many will be surprised that if they checked their Nations statutes the use of "backup" is not a free as they might think.
This has been an interesting discussion ,but I don't believe either camps will see the other side.I still hold the belief that 90%+ pirates are not on some noble democratic quest for the betterment of human kind , but simply after something for zip.
sonny
July 7th, 2005, 12:10 AM
This has been an interesting discussion ,but I don't believe either camps will see the other side.I still hold the belief that 90%+ pirates are not on some noble democratic quest for the betterment of human kind , but simply after something for zip.
I agree with you... pirates do NOT represent the ideas of FREEDOM of the Linux community, we don't have to confuse piracy with freedom; as some people do, that's why the Linux community should be the one that gives the example about copyright, but defending our GPL. That is, a true linux user should never pirate anything, instead use open source equivalents of the software, and respect the license on wich the thing (tvshow, songs, books, paints, software, games, etc.) is release, cus some poeple have a misslead idea about Linux users.
In the matter of the media, US has always protected the "legal monopolies", by making strict laws against piracy in every sense. But there's got to be a limit, perhaps a GPL for massive media? A TV show that you can copy and redistribute without making profit?. Or charge a few dollar for every single blank storage media like in Canada, that way you're paying the author for something you might copy.
XDevHald
July 7th, 2005, 12:26 AM
Sadly enough this is beyond the truth of belief and to note one for myself, I know a someone (not myself) who does pirate movies more than I have ever seen anyone do in my entire career of working in/with computers/internet.
It's basically for them and also a note to that person who does do the piracy, they do think about the fact that the author is the one who did do all the work and so forth and so on, but in the end they're saying hey, it's just a movie.
In a small sense of human brains we have, I think it's common sense to NOT pirate ANYTHING. I have done it a few times if not more, but since I have been doing more coding and other documentation for certain projects I don't find myself doing this anymore due to updated security releases of the FBI and RIAA and MPAA doing their jobs.
If you want to burn, dude, feel free, but your ass is on the line if you get caught and take note to this, I sawl on the news sometime in the beginning of this year, a live news update of people actually getting caught and fined/sent to jail for doing this. I do have to say that after seeing that, I said, "Screw that".
To top it all off, it's not what it is, it's what it's value is to that person who made it.
aragorn2909
July 7th, 2005, 01:45 AM
Recording Music/TV Programs
That is permited under the copyright and the laws of most nations to allow time shifting . In other words record now watch later.
It does not permit you to then make copies of that material and distrubute for gain or not .
Far too complex an issue to be so oversimplified.
Software testing
Most software manufacturers provide trial software for you to test, so sorry that reason for piracy is invalid.
The fact that most demo/trial ware is crippled to the point of not being useable is the perfect reason for me to test it, and completely valid. My point earlier was that I test software, as it was intended to be used, and if I like, I purchase. Anything less, I get rid of.
Backup copies
That depends largely where you live and the user licence. But many will be surprised that if they checked their Nations statutes the use of "backup" is not a free as they might think.
If I may paraphrase Canada's Copyright Act, "The owner of an authorized and legitimate copy of a piece of software may reproduce a single copy of the software, for backup purposes, provided that the single backup copy is destroyed immediately once the person ceases to be the owner of the authorized copy of the software". This also allows for backup of VCR/CD/DVD media.
BWF89
July 7th, 2005, 02:08 AM
Not the same at all, if a publisher places their books in a library they have made that choice and have said it is alright to borrow my book and read it , if you copy the book , that is not correct.
The same with a movie from the Video library.The same with music . The creator or publishers has given their consent by choice for you to listen to it and to listen to it in private with your friends, but not to copy and give it to your friends. They have spelt out their wishes very clearly in the copyright.
The only difference is if you copy a book for a friend he can read it anytime and if you let him come over to your house and read it he can only read it once or however many times he lets you.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.2 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.