Suing is not enough, RIAA must humiliate victims now...

[izanbardprince]

http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20070730-riaa-backtracks-after-embarrassing-p2p-defendant.html

RIAA: "Oooops. we just accidentally submitted the file names of all the porn files in your shared folder into the court's public record." (wink wink)

:popcorn:

[Malh]

Curse your black hearts RIAA!! Curse them!

[Malh]

http://www.jinx.com/other_swag/other/geek/riaa_toilet_paper_1_roll.html?catid=1
^Definately worth the money.

[~LoKe]

You seem to have left something out:

Recognizing its latest gaffe, the RIAA filed a motion asking that the original exhibit be removed from the public record and replaced with a modified exhibit without the superfluous file names.
Selective quoting, for the loss.

The RIAA is messed up and they're going about everything the wrong way, but that doesn't mean you have to pick out every little thing and beat on them for it.

[Adamant1988]

You seem to have left something out:

Selective quoting, for the loss.

The RIAA is messed up and they're going about everything the wrong way, but that doesn't mean you have to pick out every little thing and beat on them for it.

Yeah, but actually reading the article takes time and patience, and with so many Ubuntu users trying to spread as much FUD as possible, it's just not practical.

[Espreon]

People, get ahold of yourselfs, the RIAA are nothing but a bunch of heartless jerks who have no soul and don't understand that file sharing is not always used to steal copyrighted stuff. I bet they are also psychopaths due to their habit of humiliating their victims. The damn RIAA even sued people who never even used a friggin computer, yet the big,bad RIAA accused them of sharing illegal files. What a bunch of *-holes

[juxtaposed]

steal copyrighted stuff. I

I still don't understand how copying a digital file is stealing :P

[Espreon]

Oh I forgot the word not in that sentence. But file sharing is not always used to steal.

[juxtaposed]

Oh I forgot the word not in that sentence. But file sharing is not always used to steal.

It is never used to steal because sharing is not stealing.

[Espreon]

It is never used to steal because sharing is not stealing.

I am just using the exagerated term used by the RIAA.

[~LoKe]

It is never used to steal because sharing is not stealing.

Don't pull that garbage. Giving others the ability to play music at will without the authors consent (aka payment) is stealing.

It's like going to Burger King, getting a drink and using your free refills so your friends can have some without paying. Still stealing.

There's no gray area here. You download music, download movies, or upload them, you're stealing.

[kelvin spratt]

not in all countries you should state what country you mean?

[juxtaposed]

Don't pull that garbage. Giving others the ability to play music at will without the authors consent (aka payment) is stealing.

No, the artist doesn't have a right to control what people do with the music they made after it is in someone elses posession.


It's like going to Burger King, getting a drink and using your free refills so your friends can have some without paying. Still stealing.

No.

A better example with that would be going to burger king and getting a drink, then magically copying that drink so someone else can have their own copy.

But it is a bad example anyway because a drink can't be digitized or digitally represented, because digital things can be copied easily and effortlessly.


There's no gray area here. You download music, download movies, or upload them, you're stealing.

Not in the slightest...

[Espreon]

Yeah I agree, with the drink refill analogy, but BURGER KING? That place is a death trap. Trans fats will get you someday or another.

[kelvin spratt]

I don't think the artist has any rights to his own music its owned by the
publishers and record companies and they rob to artists left and right

[Hex_Mandos]

Sharing isn't stealing. A victim of theft is deprived of his or her belongings by the perpetrator. A company whose files are copied doesn't lose the original files. They are merely not getting any money for copies, but they're not losing something they already had.

Moreover, the event of losing money is just a possibility, as most people download more music than they'd buy (as there's some stuff you'll only listen to if it's free, or just to see if you like it, etc.)

So, stealing is actually depriving somebody from his or her property. File sharing is potentially depriving someone of future earnings that may or may not happen, but without depriving him or her from the original files. In my experience with continental legal systems, that's a HUGE difference.

[Depressed Man]

This reminds me of something I once heard. Someone had posted "You wouldn't steal a car, so why steal music"

To which the reply was "I wouldn't steal a car, but if my friend bought a car and offered to make me a copy of it I'd say hell yeah".

[Rocket2DMn]

Sharing copyrighted music is illegal. That is a fact, and it is (mostly) undisputed.
The controversy is whether is should be illegal - is it stealing? I would be lying if I said I didn't download music, but I also believe it is right to go out and buy the music if you like it. Consider it like a trial period.

In relation to that article, though, those tactics are screwed up, the RIAA has chosen their methods very poorly.

[Espreon]

You are correct.

[Hex_Mandos]

Sharing copyrighted music is illegal. That is a fact, and it is (mostly) undisputed.
The controversy is whether is should be illegal - is it stealing? I would be lying if I said I didn't download music, but I also believe it is right to go out and buy the music if you like it. Consider it like a trial period.

In relation to that article, though, those tactics are screwed up, the RIAA has chosen their methods very poorly.

And even then, it depends on what you consider illegal. There are many behaviors that aren't quite legal or illegal. Filesharing for personal use falls in that grey area, IMO. It's clearly not a behavior that's condoned by the affected party, or even permitted by the law, yet it's not clearly punishable either (in many jurisdictions, including mine, at least). As I said in my previous post, the damage caused by someone downloading files is minimal, potential, and doesn't affect what music companies already own. I can't see that getting anybody a fine or a jail sentence.

[Adamant1988]

No, the artist doesn't have a right to control what people do with the music they made after it is in someone elses posession.

The law in America disagrees with you.






A better example with that would be going to burger king and getting a drink, then magically copying that drink so someone else can have their own copy.

Right, and then Burger King just lost potential profits because your friend couldn't be bothered to pay for your soda.

[Rocket2DMn]

illegal = not permitted by law. The amount of damage caused is not the point - I work in an IT department and I could walk home with an extra mouse and nobody would ever know or be affected, but it's still stealing.
I don't oppose downloading music, but if you do, you just need to be aware of what you're doing. People get fined for downloading music illegally, just look at all the students getting taken to court.

[Turboaaa2001]

I don't think this is humiliation! 90 some % of all males online have accessed porn in some way and are not really ashamed of it.

This is something that is not surprising to me at all. In fact, when I was a PC Tech for Circuit City the most common virus issues were people downloading porn from Kazaa without a digital rubber (anti-Malware).

Not only that, but its so common place that I had a customer want a full refund for a data migration because we appearently did not get all his porn off the old computer!!!!

If we really didn't get all the porn off it's because we didn't want to see more. It was on his drive in such a way that we HAD to open all files to make sure it was his stuff. Not only that but most of it was pictures and movies of himself!!!!:-&

[FurryNemesis]

Ick. Poor you.

I don't think the porn analogy stands up though. Most porn is free, and some of that is pirated from production companies, who do not try to control its flow once distributed. (Evil thought: it's a good thing they haven't tried to copyright sex.)
Most music is not free, and is pirated from the record companies who actively try to control the media post-purchase with various forms of DRM.

One sector has realised that there's no point trying to control their product because everyone can make it if they choose to (viz: your customer), the other makes use of some occasional rare talent and much media and social manipulation.

For the record, I like my music rootkit-free and will not buy from any of the major labels.

[DoctorMO]

Sharing copyrighted music is illegal. That is a fact, and it is (mostly) undisputed.
The controversy is whether is should be illegal - is it stealing? I would be lying if I said I didn't download music, but I also believe it is right to go out and buy the music if you like it. Consider it like a trial period.

Copyright infringement isn't stealing, the worlds governments may have made it a criminal offence in recent years but it's a very different law and legal procedure from theft and larceny in most western countries. You can't go around saying it's theft when it isn't.

Sharing copyrighted material isn't copyright infringement either, Linux is copyrighted and your permitted to share it. don't be so careless with your words.

I'd also like to point out that copyright law was originally developed to prevent republication or public performances of someone elses work; it was never intended to criminalise normal people sharing between family and friends... as that is human nature and will never be really effectively outlawed.

Economically speaking any digital copyrighted material has an effective value of £0.00 since demand / supply inducing price. yet the supply is infinite and the demand doesn't matter. What we have here is companies desperately trying to hold onto an old model for making money from music and film which doesn't even work economically let alone technically or morally.

[Adamant1988]

Copyright infringement isn't stealing, the worlds governments may have made it a criminal offence in recent years but it's a very different law and legal procedure from theft and larceny in most western countries. You can't go around saying it's theft when it isn't.

Sharing copyrighted material isn't copyright infringement either, Linux is copyrighted and your permitted to share it. don't be so careless with your words.

I'd also like to point out that copyright law was originally developed to prevent republication or public performances of someone elses work; it was never intended to criminalise normal people sharing between family and friends... as that is human nature and will never be really effectively outlawed.

Economically speaking any digital copyrighted material has an effective value of £0.00 since demand / supply inducing price. yet the supply is infinite and the demand doesn't matter. What we have here is companies desperately trying to hold onto an old model for making money from music and film which doesn't even work economically let alone technically or morally.

Linux is shareable because the GPL states that it has to be. You are free to license your copyrighted material however you want, but the default is not 'open'. If I write an article right now, and someone claims they wrote it tomorrow, even if I never placed a copyright license on it, they violated copyright law.

Also, digital media of all kinds are problematic in the sense of supply vs demand. It's easier to just let people share it, but you have to think of a way to monetize that. We're in a transitional stage right now with lots of knee-jerk reactions coming from old-guard businessmen. It'll be over soon.

[DoctorMO]

The default is All Right Reserved, which is what I keep telling people on DeviantArt; they're pretty much clueless about copyrights and are sort of just expecting people to share their works with an undisclosed set of community type rules. *roll eyes* it gets worse with collaborative works.


but the default is not 'open'. If I write an article right now, and someone claims they wrote it tomorrow, even if I never placed a copyright license on it, they violated copyright law.

Don't confuse attribution with copyright, they aren't quite the same thing as former would be plagiarism and the later copyright infringement.

[izanbardprince]

You seem to have left something out:

Selective quoting, for the loss.

The RIAA is messed up and they're going about everything the wrong way, but that doesn't mean you have to pick out every little thing and beat on them for it.

I dunno, but to me that kind of read.

"After blurting it out for all to hear, and making the news no less, we now wish to officially 'un-blurt' it, now that everyone knows anyway."

[izanbardprince]

People, get ahold of yourselfs, the RIAA are nothing but a bunch of heartless jerks who have no soul and don't understand that file sharing is not always used to steal copyrighted stuff. I bet they are also psychopaths due to their habit of humiliating their victims. The damn RIAA even sued people who never even used a friggin computer, yet the big,bad RIAA accused them of sharing illegal files. What a bunch of *-holes

You're talking about the industry that tried to kill off the cassette tape recorder because a few blank tapes went towards making "pirate" copies of albums, nevermind the fact that the RIAA made a fortune off selling pre-recorded cassette tapes, these people would cut off their nose to spite their face.

[izanbardprince]

I still don't understand how copying a digital file is stealing :P


Me neither, I had the thought to sing some tunes in the shower then compress it all into mp3 files which I would then deceptively name and put on Limewire, then after millions of people "stole" my IP, I would sue them into oblivion and live the rest of my life in a mansion, with a butler who would remove all the brown M&M's from my bowl.

[izanbardprince]

Don't pull that garbage. Giving others the ability to play music at will without the authors consent (aka payment) is stealing.

It's like going to Burger King, getting a drink and using your free refills so your friends can have some without paying. Still stealing.

There's no gray area here. You download music, download movies, or upload them, you're stealing.


Yes, because we have the finest copyright laws that money can buy.

I'm sure if you went into Burger King and used your free refills to give all your friends a drink, you would be fined $250,000 per incident + 10 years in federal prison.

(Probably not so much)

[Rocket2DMn]

Yes, because we have the finest copyright laws that money can buy.

I'm sure if you went into Burger King and used your free refills to give all your friends a drink, you would be fined $250,000 per incident + 10 years in federal prison.

(Probably not so much)

Laws give a maximum and minimum sentence. They would probably do nothing, but they could if they wanted (as in they felt it was beneficial to pursue a lawsuit).

[izanbardprince]

I don't think this is humiliation! 90 some % of all males online have accessed porn in some way and are not really ashamed of it.

This is something that is not surprising to me at all. In fact, when I was a PC Tech for Circuit City the most common virus issues were people downloading porn from Kazaa without a digital rubber (anti-Malware).

Not only that, but its so common place that I had a customer want a full refund for a data migration because we appearently did not get all his porn off the old computer!!!!

If we really didn't get all the porn off it's because we didn't want to see more. It was on his drive in such a way that we HAD to open all files to make sure it was his stuff. Not only that but most of it was pictures and movies of himself!!!!:-&

If you know so little about using a computer that you buy one at horrendous mark-up from a big box retail store, go home, install freaking KAZAA on it, try to get porn, which is actually an EXE file, and then take it back to try and get someone who makes $8 an hour to fix it, you probably shouldn't ever attempt to use a computer again.

[juxtaposed]

The law in America disagrees with you.


I don't care. The law has no effect on what is right or wrong or what is stealing.


Right, and then Burger King just lost potential profits because your friend couldn't be bothered to pay for your soda.

But why would someone be able to enforce profits with the law? Sure, they might have lost potential profit, but it sure isn't stealing.


If I write an article right now, and someone claims they wrote it tomorrow, even if I never placed a copyright license on it, they violated copyright law.

But they didn't steal it if they copied it. Claiming they wrote it would also be plagarism.

[distroman]

Jefferson goes on:

Society may give an exclusive right to the profits arising from [inventions], as an encouragement to men to pursue ideas which may produce utility, but this may or may not be done, according to the will and convenience of the society, without claim or complaint from any body. Accordingly, it is a fact, as far as I am informed, that England was, until we copied her, the only country on earth which ever, by a general law, gave a legal right to the exclusive use of an idea. In some other countries it is sometimes done, in a great case, and by a special and personal act, but, generally speaking, other nations have thought that these monopolies produce more embarrassment than [*pg 54] advantage to society; and it may be observed that the nations which refuse monopolies of invention, are as fruitful as England in new and useful devices

http://www.law.duke.edu/shell/cite.pl?66+Law+&+Contemp.+Probs.+33+(WinterSpring+2003)

This discussion is so old ill just drop this quote because I always found it fun, one thing that's still true though even if beside the point (again) is that just because a majority claim to be right does not necessarily make them so.

[Hex_Mandos]

illegal = not permitted by law. The amount of damage caused is not the point - I work in an IT department and I could walk home with an extra mouse and nobody would ever know or be affected, but it's still stealing.
I don't oppose downloading music, but if you do, you just need to be aware of what you're doing. People get fined for downloading music illegally, just look at all the students getting taken to court.

Maybe somewhere else. They're not being fined in my country.

As for damage caused, it could be argued that it's one of the requisites for the criminalization of a certain behavior (as criminal types are defined in order to protect certain values). There are basically two kinds of behaviors punished by law: those that damage others (such as stealing) and those that, while they don't directly damage someone, are considered socially dangerous (depending on the jurisdiction, carrying a loaded gun without authorization or consuming certain substances). Filesharing for personal use is neither socially dangerous nor damaging. So it can't be penalized unless it's explicitly mentioned in a law - and in most of the world, it isn't.

BTW, IANAL, but I'm a law student. I'm certain that a case against filesharers wouldn't prosper in Argentina. My position should hold in most continental legal systems, as long as filesharing isn't explicitly criminalized in the country in question.

[~LoKe]

But why would someone be able to enforce profits with the law? Sure, they might have lost potential profit, but it sure isn't stealing.
They get a beverage without paying for it. It's not potential profit, it's direct theft being that the Pepsi is leaving their machine. It's similar to going to a grocery store with a friend, he buys an apple and you think that since he paid for his, you can have one yourself.

[juxtaposed]

They get a beverage without paying for it. It's not potential profit, it's direct theft being that the Pepsi is leaving their machine.

Just because you get something without paying for it doesn't make it theft.

And I wasn't talking about taking pop from their refill machine, I was talking about you buying a drink and magically copying it (like you can with digital things) and giving your friend a copy. That is not theft.


It's similar to going to a grocery store with a friend, he buys an apple and you think that since he paid for his, you can have one yourself.

That is nothing like copyright infringement.

Copyright infringement would be like going to a store, buying an apple, then magically copying it so you now have two apples and you give your friend the second apple. You have the right to do whatever you want with your apple you bought, and you chose you copy it. Your friend gets an apple and the store looses no apples (besides the one you bought and paid for), so no loss from the store (only a potential loss of profit).

[~LoKe]

Quote me where I said anything about copyright infringement, I said it's stealing.

[juxtaposed]

Quote me where I said anything about copyright infringement, I said it's stealing.

Whatever you mean, whatever you're talking about, piracy is not stealing. Piracy is copying.

[~LoKe]

Whatever you mean, whatever you're talking about, piracy is not stealing. Piracy is copying.

What do you think "piracy" is?
pi·ra·cy /ˈpaɪrəsi/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[pahy-ruh-see] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
–noun, plural -cies.
1. practice of a pirate; robbery or illegal violence at sea.
2. the unauthorized reproduction or use of a copyrighted book, recording, television program, patented invention, trademarked product, etc.: The record industry is beset with piracy.

[juxtaposed]

What do you think "piracy" is?

It can mean a lot of things, but in this discussion I am using it to mean file sharing copyrighted works without the permission of the copyright holder.

[Adamant1988]

Copyright infringement would be like going to a store, buying an apple, then magically copying it so you now have two apples and you give your friend the second apple. You have the right to do whatever you want with your apple you bought, and you chose you copy it. Your friend gets an apple and the store looses no apples (besides the one you bought and paid for), so no loss from the store (only a potential loss of profit).

Ok, you're wrong. You do NOT have the right to do whatever you want with that apple, nor do you have the 'right' to do whatever you want with an mp3.

First, one person purchases the song, and gives his friend a copy, and his friend decides to share that song with the world. Your logic fails at the moment your friend shares that song with someone else. Using your logic, only the person who purchased the music would be able to do whatever they want with it, but obviously this isn't the case. Even using your own logic the person who received the duplicate mp3 would have any rights to it as they didn't pay for it.

Second, if you buy an e-book, you do not have the right to distribute that book to the world. What on earth makes you feel that Music is any different? You are bound by copyright law the same way that every other American is.

[~LoKe]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright#Exclusive_rights

Several exclusive rights typically attach to the holder of a copyright:

* to produce copies or reproductions of the work and to sell those copies (including, typically, electronic copies)

The phrase "exclusive right" means that only the copyright holder is free to exercise the attendant rights, and others are prohibited using the work without the consent of the copyright holder.
No gray area here.

[juxtaposed]

You do NOT have the right to do whatever you want with that apple, nor do you have the 'right' to do whatever you want with an mp3.

Yes, I do. It is in my posession and not in the posession of the record company or the grocery store.


Even using your own logic the person who received the duplicate mp3 would have any rights to it as they didn't pay for it.

Yes. They would now be in posession of a copy of it and would therefore have the right to do what they want with somthing in their posession.


Second, if you buy an e-book, you do not have the right to distribute that book to the world. What on earth makes you feel that Music is any different?

It is no different. If you are in posession of a digital ebook file you have a right to do with it what you want, the same with a digital music file, the same with anything. It's just you can do more with digital things because there are very little physical restrictions.


You are bound by copyright law the same way that every other American is.

I thought this was about whether piracy is bad, or it is stealing; Not if it is against the law in America.


No gray area here.

Same as I said above, I thought this was about whether piracy is bad, or it is stealing; Not if it is against the law in America.

[~LoKe]

Theft is defined by the law, and when the law clearly states that copying music is theft, then it's theft.

If you don't agree with their idea of what's stealing is, move to a different country (here in Canada downloading music is still legal; uploading, on the other hand, isn't.).

[Adamant1988]

Yes, I do. It is in my posession and not in the posession of the record company or the grocery store.



Yes. They would now be in posession of a copy of it and would therefore have the right to do what they want with somthing in their posession.



It is no different. If you are in posession of a digital ebook file you have a right to do with it what you want, the same with a digital music file, the same with anything. It's just you can do more with digital things because there are very little physical restrictions.



I thought this was about whether piracy is bad, or it is stealing; Not if it is against the law in America.



Same as I said above, I thought this was about whether piracy is bad, or it is stealing; Not if it is against the law in America.

I'm not arguing about whether or not the unauthorized distribution of material that you have no right to distribute is right or wrong. You have the ABILITY to distribute it, you do not have the right. I have the ABILITY to shoot someone with a gun because I own it and it's in my possession (Not the gun-shops), but that doesn't mean I have the right to. I have the ability to scan every single page of all of my favorite books and distribute them on the internet as free download-able copies, that doesnt' mean I have the right to.

You're confusing the ability to do something with the right to do it.

It's just unfortunate that people who actually want to just use their music for legit. purposes have to suffer because you can't be bothered to pay for anything. DRM exists because of you, and others like you.

You know, it's funny, I don't remember any of the big record labels complaining when software to rip songs to mp3 became available, I don't remember them complaining when people burned CDs for themselves and actually used the things for fair-use. They started getting upset when people stopped paying for the product and started downloading it. Then came the lawsuits, and the DRM, and draconian laws like the DMCA.

Yes, they're guilty of violating a lot of people now, as a knee-jerk reaction to the illegal activities of a lot of people. But don't act like that makes distributing the music right, it doesn't.

[Frak]

http://www.jinx.com/other_swag/other/geek/riaa_toilet_paper_1_roll.html?catid=1
^Definately worth the money.
Man their out of stock :(

[Hex_Mandos]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright#Exclusive_rights

No gray area here.
Where does that speak of theft? It just says the law doesn't condone copying. Which is different from theft (which requires taking tangible goods away from their owner), AND is different from saying the behavior in question is penalized. The first measure of "illegality" isn't punishing the perpetrator, but merely not protecting him or her (the clearest example would be using an unlicensed copy of commercial software: even if the copyright holder can't put unlicensed users into jail, they can decline to provide support or introduce measures such as WGA. By using an unlicensed copy, the user loses his or her rights as a consumer of the software. But that doesn't mean said person is always a criminal

[Hex_Mandos]

Ok, you're wrong. You do NOT have the right to do whatever you want with that apple, nor do you have the 'right' to do whatever you want with an mp3.

Actually, you can do pretty much whatever you want with an apple, as long as you don't hurt anybody else (ie you can't poison it and give it to someone to kill him or her). If we were talking about expensive stuff, it could be argued that you're only entitled to regular use (according to this school of thought, owning a house doesn't give you the right to burn it down, as that kind of wanton destruction is immoral. I see their point, but don't share it completely). But when we're talking about something as economically insignificant as an apple or a single song, it'd be hard to argue that someone doesn't have the right to do whatever he or she wishes with his or her property.

[Adamant1988]

Actually, you can do pretty much whatever you want with an apple, as long as you don't hurt anybody else (ie you can't poison it and give it to someone to kill him or her). If we were talking about expensive stuff, it could be argued that you're only entitled to regular use (according to this school of thought, owning a house doesn't give you the right to burn it down, as that kind of wanton destruction is immoral. I see their point, but don't share it completely). But when we're talking about something as economically insignificant as an apple or a single song, it'd be hard to argue that someone doesn't have the right to do whatever he or she wishes with his or her property.

This is a bad train of thought. I'm going to quote one of my favorite demotivators to show you why I think this is wrong:

"No single raindrop believes it is responsible for the flood".

A single shared song, movie, or whatever, represents fairly minimal damage, you're right. But what happens when it's EVERY song or movie that you could possibly think of? What happens when the people who used to buy music just don't have to anymore?

No, I'm not against the concept of sharing music, etc. So long as it was the artists' wish that it be shared. For instance, I just attained a free album on Facebook from "The Polish Ambassador" and it's wonderful, I would definitely be willing to buy music from him.

Yes, the model is broken now, because people just want to fill up their iPods with as much music as possible, unfortunately, filling up an iPod is expensive, so people decide to just download the music. Now it's on the market to produce an effective way for artists to get to you and make money from you, if they can convince you to pay for it. But, just because the model is broken is truly no excuse to further damage the situation.

[Hex_Mandos]

True, it can get out of hand soon. But it's not less true that I have the right to do whatever I want with stuff which I own, and that cultural products unfairly restrict this right.

I'm not trying to defend filesharing in industrial quantities, mind you. But I do think that the solution to filesharing should be cutting prices and finding new business models. Media companies are relying on the business models of the industrial age, and that age is gone. They should adapt to new conditions, just like they adapted before.

[steven8]

The original idea, I believe, behind this post, was not to be an evaluation of the rights or wrongs of file sharing, (at least not by the title), it was about the RIAA trying to embarrass someone, by showing files they KNEW would plant a bad picture of the defendent in other people's minds, then saying "Oops. sorry. Please strike that from the record and no one think about that awful stuff when making a decision." It's a VERY old tactic and will probably work quite well getting this 'deviant pervert' convicted. Not really embarrassment, just planting that seed of doubt about their veracity to help move things along.

[izanbardprince]

The original idea, I believe, behind this post, was not to be an evaluation of the rights or wrongs of file sharing, (at least not by the title), it was about the RIAA trying to embarrass someone, by showing files they KNEW would plant a bad picture of the defendent in other people's minds, then saying "Oops. sorry. Please strike that from the record and no one think about that awful stuff when making a decision." It's a VERY old tactic and will probably work quite well getting this 'deviant pervert' convicted. Not really embarrassment, just planting that seed of doubt about their veracity to help move things along.

That is pretty much what I was saying, the RIAA is not relying on the merit of their case, they're simply using smear tactics on the man so that everyone thinks less of him than they do about the RIAA, and the RIAA is pretty hard to respect when they drag senior citizens into court who don't even know how to use a computer, and 10 year old girls that downloaded a Britney Spears song.

[DoctorMO]

You are bound by copyright law the same way that every other American is.

If I remember correctly ubuntu isn't USA only or even America only and since when did the entire american continent have one set of laws and since when did the USA start enforcing those laws in other countries?

Lets just re-enforce the point here: Even in the screwed up USA law, copyright infringement is NOT theft, it isn't considered theft and it isn't labelled as theft.

I'd be happy just boycotting my entire cultural heritage until it goes into public domain when I'm 170 years old, but you know the law takes no account of culturally significant works; it's not even mentioned in the laws, so I consider the law to be immoral on that point alone. If I had my way most copyright terms would be shortened to 20 years, patents to 5 years (only available for < 5% market share) and I'd also put all those whiny abusive capitalists in irons and ship them out to Easter island.

[juxtaposed]

You're confusing the ability to do something with the right to do it.

No.

And you're confusing what the law gives you permission to do with what is your right.


DRM exists because of you, and others like you.

DRM doesn't affect me at all.

But DRM exists because the record execs think that making their music more restrictive will make people buy more of it. They arn't trying to stop bittorrent with it, they are trying to stop the little things like someone copying a song onto someone elses MP3 player.


you do not have the right.

If I have something in my posession it is mine. I can do what I want with my stuff.


I don't remember any of the big record labels complaining when software to rip songs to mp3 became available, I don't remember them complaining when people burned CDs for themselves and actually used the things for fair-use.

I think they wen't after the company who made the first (or atleast the first in america) MP3 player saying it helped piracy...


They started getting upset when people stopped paying for the product and started downloading it.

They get upset when any statistic goes down (even if it doesn't mean sales go down) and they cry "OMGZ, PRACY KILZL US".


(according to this school of thought, owning a house doesn't give you the right to burn it down, as that kind of wanton destruction is immoral.

I've never heard of that, and it is absurd. Who gets to decide what is immoral?


But what happens when it's EVERY song or movie that you could possibly think of? What happens when the people who used to buy music just don't have to anymore?

People still want to buy music. Belive it or not. Just it is much harder to force feed generic pop music down peoples throats and have them sell a million records.


and since when did the USA start enforcing those laws in other countries?

Actually, they try to do that. They try to send DMCA letters to the pirate bay, which is in sweden, even though the DMCA is american. They say that TPB is illegal (in american law) and try to lobby sweden to take it down, even though it is legal under swedish law.

Also, same with allofmp3. Legal under russian law, but the americans tried to take it down with threats (and it worked).

[laxmanb]

Well... serves you right for copyright violations!

[Adamant1988]

No.

And you're confusing what the law gives you permission to do with what is your right. Your rights are written into law, anything beyond that is simply your opinion. I would expect someone of your political stances to hold those views, seeing as how you'd abolish all governments if you could.




DRM doesn't affect me at all.

But DRM exists because the record execs think that making their music more restrictive will make people buy more of it. They arn't trying to stop bittorrent with it, they are trying to stop the little things like someone copying a song onto someone elses MP3 player.
They're trying to stop the *sharing* in general. I don't think DRM was targeted.


If I have something in my posession it is mine. I can do what I want with my stuff.
The law disagrees with you. You're welcome to act on your opinions, but I bet you'll be whining like a little kid should you ever be brought to court for 'upholding your rights'.



I think they wen't after the company who made the first (or atleast the first in america) MP3 player saying it helped piracy...

You *think* they did. Well, I didn't see it, so unless you produce some kind of proof that they went after mp3 player manufacturers before "sharing" became a problem then I'll have to believe what I said is true.


They get upset when any statistic goes down (even if it doesn't mean sales go down) and they cry "OMGZ, PRACY KILZL US".
Actually, the year over year drop in music sales since the beginning of the p2p craze would seem to agree with them.



People still want to buy music. Belive it or not. Just it is much harder to force feed generic pop music down peoples throats and have them sell a million records.

I buy my music, all of my music collection is attained legally.




Actually, they try to do that. They try to send DMCA letters to the pirate bay, which is in sweden, even though the DMCA is american. They say that TPB is illegal (in american law) and try to lobby sweden to take it down, even though it is legal under swedish law.

Also, same with allofmp3. Legal under russian law, but the americans tried to take it down with threats (and it worked).

Well, there are treaties and agreements with these countries on certain things, and it's not like a canned email takes too many valuable man-hours to write.

[bobbocanfly]

We humiliate the RIAA everyday by cracking their protection systems and downloading tracks and movies.

They also humiliate themselves by stealing Linkware code and then standing up and saying its ok because we were just testing it. Im sure id get away with just testing one of their movies.

I also believe that big drop in CD sales is because people are realising that CD's are an absolute rip off, cost about 50p to make yet we are out there buying them for £15. Also the mass uptake in Legal Downloading. They dont have a leg to stand on in that respect.

[Frak]

We humiliate the RIAA everyday by cracking their protection systems and downloading tracks and movies.

They also humiliate themselves by stealing Linkware code and then standing up and saying its ok because we were just testing it. Im sure id get away with just testing one of their movies.

I also believe that big drop in CD sales is because people are realising that CD's are an absolute rip off, cost about 50p to make yet we are out there buying them for £15. Also the mass uptake in Legal Downloading. They dont have a leg to stand on in that respect.
Preach!

[Hex_Mandos]

I've never heard of that, and it is absurd. Who gets to decide what is immoral?

Argentinian civil code, after 1968's reform (law 17.711), can't remember the article right now. It's not so absurd if you think about it from a continental perspective. Continental law has always given more benefits to heirs than common law, so destroying your property for no reason at all (like burning down your house) could be interpreted as unfairly depriving your heirs from an inheritance. I'm not sure it's a great solution (as people will eventually find ways to get around any law), but it's typically mediterranean. I'm sure the same school of thought must have influenced laws in other countries, so there might be laws restricting the way people can use their property.

But in any case, barring very specific cases in certain jurisdictions, you ARE free to do whatever you want with your stuff as long as you don't damage third parties. And the claim that filesharing is actually damaging artists and media companies is shaky.

[Frak]

Argentinian civil code, after 1968's reform (law 17.711), can't remember the article right now. It's not so absurd if you think about it from a continental perspective. Continental law has always given more benefits to heirs than common law, so destroying your property for no reason at all (like burning down your house) could be interpreted as unfairly depriving your heirs from an inheritance. I'm not sure it's a great solution (as people will eventually find ways to get around any law), but it's typically mediterranean. I'm sure the same school of thought must have influenced laws in other countries, so there might be laws restricting the way people can use their property.

But in any case, barring very specific cases in certain jurisdictions, you ARE free to do whatever you want with your stuff as long as you don't damage third parties. And the claim that filesharing is actually damaging artists and media companies is shaky.
In that case though, it goes further than your property, but to your heirs, which in the future will be their property.
So technically, you are destroying your heirs future property, not yours, theirs.

[Hex_Mandos]

It's not their property until you die, even though it will someday be.

Anyway, as I said, it's a fringe case.

[juxtaposed]

Your rights are written into law, anything beyond that is simply your opinion.

The government does not decide my rights.


seeing as how you'd abolish all governments if you could.

And proud of it :)


You *think* they did. Well, I didn't see it, so unless you produce some kind of proof that they went after mp3 player manufacturers before "sharing" became a problem then I'll have to believe what I said is true.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MP3_players#History


The first non-mechanical unit on the American market was the Eiger Labs MPMan F10, a 32MB portable that appeared in the summer of 1998. It was a very basic unit and wasn't user expandable, though owners could upgrade the memory to 64MB by sending the player back to Eiger Labs with a check for $69 + $7.95 shipping.

The second DAP (and the first mass market player) was the Rio PMP300 from Diamond Multimedia, introduced in September 1998. The Rio was a big success during the Christmas 1998 season as sales significantly exceeded expectations, spurring interest and investment in digital music. The Recording Industry Association of America soon filed a lawsuit alleging that the device abetted illegal copying of music, but Diamond won a legal victory on the shoulders of Sony Corp. v. Universal City Studios and digital audio players were ruled legal devices.

There. Happy? :P


so destroying your property for no reason at all (like burning down your house) could be interpreted as unfairly depriving your heirs from an inheritance.

I still find that very very odd. I've never heard anything about that before.

[beefcurry]

I wonder how history will look back at the actions of the RIAA. :)

[Frak]

I wonder how history will look back at the actions of the RIAA. :)
The cavemen, we will refer to as the "RIAA", have just found somebody stealing their acorns and Donky's. Of course the leader hoots and growls to the other members of the tribe to get pumped for the upcoming fight.
Watch how as the tribe tries to defend their nuts and a**es.

[finalcut]

You seem to have left something out:

Selective quoting, for the loss.

The RIAA is messed up and they're going about everything the wrong way, but that doesn't mean you have to pick out every little thing and beat on them for it.

the RIAA doesn't care who they humiliate, as long as they get their money. I bet most of it goes toward cocaine.

[Hallvor]

If I remember correctly ubuntu isn't USA only or even America only and since when did the entire american continent have one set of laws and since when did the USA start enforcing those laws in other countries?

Lets just re-enforce the point here: Even in the screwed up USA law, copyright infringement is NOT theft, it isn't considered theft and it isn't labelled as theft.

I'd be happy just boycotting my entire cultural heritage until it goes into public domain when I'm 170 years old, but you know the law takes no account of culturally significant works; it's not even mentioned in the laws, so I consider the law to be immoral on that point alone. If I had my way most copyright terms would be shortened to 20 years, patents to 5 years (only available for < 5% market share) and I'd also put all those whiny abusive capitalists in irons and ship them out to Easter island.

+1

[Tyche]

http://www.jinx.com/other_swag/other/geek/riaa_toilet_paper_1_roll.html?catid=1
^Definately worth the money.

I'd be afraid of using it. The letters, or even the ink, might have something contagious in it. I'd hate to get a "social disease". :lolflag:

[FurryNemesis]

I'd be more worried about the red ink smearing. I do not want to look like a baboon.