PDA

View Full Version : Victory for European filesharers



Hallvor
August 7th, 2007, 12:03 PM
As you may or may not know, the European entertainment industry are trying to achieve what the RIAA, MPAA et.al. have been doing for years, namely getting personal data of filesharers from ISPs in order to threaten with civil lawsuits.

Recently, the entertainment industry suffered a crushing defeat in Germany, where a court in Offenbach followed the legal advice of the judicial director of the EU, Juliane Kokott, who stated in a case in Spain that ISPs may only reveal names of filesharers in case of criminal prosecution, where the offense is serious, and never in civil lawsuits.

Earlier this year, a court in Celle in Germany concluded the same, but argued that the degree of damage was insuffiscient. The judge was of the opinion that the entertainment industry was unable to prove that their losses were serious enough to justify such measures.

All in all, it looks as if the entertainment industry in Europe can`t copy the racketeering of their American counterparts.


http://www.heise.de/newsticker/meldung/93376 (German)


Sorry if it came out a mess - English is not my first language.

Kingsley
August 7th, 2007, 12:06 PM
Triumph für Deutschland.

curuxz
August 7th, 2007, 12:10 PM
a proud achievement of our EU. hope its precedent in the UK too, should be if it was advice from the EU. :)!

smoker
August 7th, 2007, 12:18 PM
good news :-)

Xcarma
August 7th, 2007, 12:26 PM
In Belgium ISP Scarlet has to block P2P networking on it's network after a lawsuit from Sabam.

So no victory over here...

koshatnik
August 7th, 2007, 12:37 PM
In Belgium ISP Scarlet has to block P2P networking on it's network after a lawsuit from Sabam.

So no victory over here...

THats more of a case of the ISP giving in. The entertainment industy has to prove beyond doubt that filesharing is damaging sales - so far no one has been able to make that link. Several studies, one in Australia if I remember correctly, proved the opposite.

PartisanEntity
August 7th, 2007, 12:40 PM
Good news, let us see how long it lasts.

igknighted
August 7th, 2007, 01:41 PM
I'm torn. I agree that it is good that the entertainment industry cannot go around accusing everyone and getting all their internet info, but at the same time, reread your title for a second. Victory for european filesharers. Thats like me saying "Victory for american car thieves". Granted a car is worth more than a music file, but none the less you are stealing. Period, end of story. Music (like software) is only free to distribute if the author/artist says it is. If you don't like that, only listen to "FOSS" music so artists get the message. Or go write to your elected officials. Do something productive if you do not like the status quo... but if your choice is to steal, regardless of your moral views on the subject, you cannot be surprised or offended when they prosecute you.

Sorry, I know that isn't the topic of the thread, but the way the title was worded really bothered me.

curuxz
August 7th, 2007, 01:55 PM
I'm torn. I agree that it is good that the entertainment industry cannot go around accusing everyone and getting all their internet info, but at the same time, reread your title for a second. Victory for european filesharers. Thats like me saying "Victory for american car thieves". Granted a car is worth more than a music file, but none the less you are stealing. Period, end of story. Music (like software) is only free to distribute if the author/artist says it is. If you don't like that, only listen to "FOSS" music so artists get the message. Or go write to your elected officials. Do something productive if you do not like the status quo... but if your choice is to steal, regardless of your moral views on the subject, you cannot be surprised or offended when they prosecute you.

Sorry, I know that isn't the topic of the thread, but the way the title was worded really bothered me.

Until they stop breaking the law their end I have no intention of supporting the law on the consumer end.

If the response by car owners were to make cars explode when you try and steal them I think we would all agree they are going way to far!

The music and film industry makes copyright laws far to strict, damages freedom with things like DRM and sues the little guys just to try and terrorise people into paying them money for crap like itunes which can only use with the associated overpriced hardware.

Another thing, while on the topic, that really gets me is the lies they send out. This is def true for the UK tho not sure about America, they keep playing adverts on films and dvd's saying "Piracy is a crime, punishable by 10 years in prison or an unlimited fine" or "downloading music is theft!" WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG its complete BS, they are totally abusing the law here and it amazes me our government is too spineless to step in and say something. PIRACY is copying films or music etc TO SELL and is a completely different crime from downloading music (ie via torrent) which is IP infringement and both not criminal and you can only sue for loss so around 50p per track or £10 per film that you can PROVE they downloaded. This attempt to scare people into thinking torrent downloads are piracy and the media having no grasp of the difference between criminal and civil law really annoys me.

When they start playing fair people will follow but if you flaunt the law you cant expect it to protect you.

Tomosaur
August 7th, 2007, 01:59 PM
I'm torn. I agree that it is good that the entertainment industry cannot go around accusing everyone and getting all their internet info, but at the same time, reread your title for a second. Victory for european filesharers. Thats like me saying "Victory for american car thieves". Granted a car is worth more than a music file, but none the less you are stealing. Period, end of story. Music (like software) is only free to distribute if the author/artist says it is. If you don't like that, only listen to "FOSS" music so artists get the message. Or go write to your elected officials. Do something productive if you do not like the status quo... but if your choice is to steal, regardless of your moral views on the subject, you cannot be surprised or offended when they prosecute you.

Sorry, I know that isn't the topic of the thread, but the way the title was worded really bothered me.

File-sharing is not illegal. The upshot of prosecuting pirates is that legal filesharing is inhibited too. The upshot of monitoring / controlling tracker websites, for example, is that my own privacy is invaded and I become nothing more than a marketing oppurtunity or a criminal suspect. If I want to download open-source software via bit-torrent, for example, then if the website where I download the .torrent file is under surveillance or is otherwise complying with requests for user information, then my own privacy is at risk, and I am treated like a criminal even if I have done nothing illegal. The RIAA has, for example, targeted completely innocent people who have not pirated anything but who may have used a torrent website, or who may have downloaded parts of their files from users who DO pirate software.

If the entertainment industry's lawyers pursue people based on circumstantial evidence such as this (which they do, regularly), then they can cause massive amounts of damage to innocent people, who are forced to either settle out of court, despite not having done anything illegal, or spend tons of money in court defending themselves and then hope to recoup the costs. The ordinary people who are targeted by the entertainment industry generally have no means of defending themselves.

Aside from the problem of suing innocent people, there is also the issue of ethics of whether sharing copyright material is unethical and whether it should be illegal at all, but that's a whole different debate.

The short and shrift of it is that the entertainment industry cannot stop peple sharing copyright material except by stopping people sharing any kind of files at all (which they cannot do). It is not file-sharing which is the problem, it's the entertainment industry. Rather than adapting to a new world where sharing information is just the way we do things, they want to stop us from sharing anything at all, because if we can share, say, GPLd software, then we can also share music files. DRM is a massive failure and people do not want it, so the only way they can 'win' is to stop us sharing at all.

Hallvor
August 7th, 2007, 02:07 PM
The file sharing = stealing analogy is coined by the entertainment industry, but not a single file sharer has been charged of or much less convicted of theft in a court of law.

Secondly, file sharing does not equal copyright infringement.

I think you may want to have a look at this thread:

http://ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?t=518792

tigerpants
August 7th, 2007, 02:08 PM
I'm torn. I agree that it is good that the entertainment industry cannot go around accusing everyone and getting all their internet info, but at the same time, reread your title for a second. Victory for european filesharers. Thats like me saying "Victory for american car thieves". Granted a car is worth more than a music file, but none the less you are stealing. Period, end of story. Music (like software) is only free to distribute if the author/artist says it is. If you don't like that, only listen to "FOSS" music so artists get the message. Or go write to your elected officials. Do something productive if you do not like the status quo... but if your choice is to steal, regardless of your moral views on the subject, you cannot be surprised or offended when they prosecute you.

Sorry, I know that isn't the topic of the thread, but the way the title was worded really bothered me.

Define stealing.

Record companies are probably the worst bunch of pirating highwaymen leachers in the history of the world - ask any recording artist. Record companies have operated cartels, held artists to ransom, indulged in "loans" to artist, screwed them of royalities, bound them into illegal and convoluted contracts. Now they start crying because people share a few tracks. Well boo fricking hoo.

People have always shared music. Its how people get to hear about bands and it drives music sales. People sharing mix tapes in the 70's and 80's drove music sales. So any argument about filesharers stealing music is a pure crock of bullcrap. They contribute more to sales than they "steal".

I spend around £2k a year on music - mainly vinyl. Most of the bands I buy I hear from filesharing networks. Without it the recording industry can wave bye bye to about £1900 worth of business from me. And I'm not the only one.

If the entertainment industry wants to "protect" its ill gotten gains then it needs to target the real criminal gangs that are making illegal cd's and dvd's and selling them for personal gain, not Joe Schmo downloading a few tracks off limewire.

I'm sick to death of idiots talking about "stealing". Hollywood and the music industry are the last people on Earth to start getting prissyy about theft.

DoctorMO
August 7th, 2007, 02:23 PM
Market forces say that in order for the EI to secure the internet world, it must appeal to peoples sense of fair play and justice while at the same time removing _all_ barriers to acquiring the media.

If you wish to stop most piracy online you just have to follow these steps:

http://docs.google.com/Doc?id=dghzxrqs_8g522cb <- something I've been writing


but none the less you are stealing. Period, end of story.

Prove it, just because you say so doesn't make it so.

curuxz
August 7th, 2007, 02:25 PM
If the entertainment industry wants to "protect" its ill gotten gains then it needs to target the real criminal gangs that are making illegal cd's and dvd's and selling them for personal gain, not Joe Schmo downloading a few tracks off limewire.

I'm sick to death of idiots talking about "stealing". Hollywood and the music industry are the last people on Earth to start getting prissyy about theft.

I could not agree more, they are the bad element not normal users.

The problem is these are precise legal terms and they get treated in sound bites and news stories without the least bit of legal integrity. Big sweeping statements like we stop people stealing music even though you can't 'steal' music so they are just terrorising people. Theft is to "dishonestly appropriate property belonging to another with the intention of permanently depriving the other of it" so by download music you are not depriving them of the music they already have it, so its not criminal!

Does not mean its wrong, but if they keep treating the law like a joke by using as many big words as they can to scare people then they are going to get called on it and lose big time, just like the banks thought they could get away with penalty charges.

Big business needs to wake up to the fact that it cant keep abusing the law and then whine about people screwing them over, the big companies are the biggest criminals in the world and the worst kind because they wear suites and smile as they destroy your life with a pen.

dca
August 7th, 2007, 02:34 PM
The RIAA will latch on to anything that doesn't cost them money, ie: PlayReady or whatever else MS will institute for DRM... When these two forces combine (billions upon billions of dollars) any government will collapse, they will also find ways of explanation to validate how it is not infringing the end-users liberties, etc, etc... They will also lobby & litigate informing the government that file-sharing services sole purpose is to distribute copyrighted materials, a'la Napster... Ahh, this just burns my rear...

igknighted
August 7th, 2007, 03:12 PM
Define stealing.

Record companies are probably the worst bunch of pirating highwaymen leachers in the history of the world - ask any recording artist. Record companies have operated cartels, held artists to ransom, indulged in "loans" to artist, screwed them of royalities, bound them into illegal and convoluted contracts. Now they start crying because people share a few tracks. Well boo fricking hoo.

People have always shared music. Its how people get to hear about bands and it drives music sales. People sharing mix tapes in the 70's and 80's drove music sales. So any argument about filesharers stealing music is a pure crock of bullcrap. They contribute more to sales than they "steal".

I spend around £2k a year on music - mainly vinyl. Most of the bands I buy I hear from filesharing networks. Without it the recording industry can wave bye bye to about £1900 worth of business from me. And I'm not the only one.

If the entertainment industry wants to "protect" its ill gotten gains then it needs to target the real criminal gangs that are making illegal cd's and dvd's and selling them for personal gain, not Joe Schmo downloading a few tracks off limewire.

I'm sick to death of idiots talking about "stealing". Hollywood and the music industry are the last people on Earth to start getting prissyy about theft.

They are offering a product, with a certain price and certain terms and conditions attached. You do not have any right to have the product, its a luxury that you can buy, should you pay what they ask and agree to their terms. The same with proprietary software. You do not have the right to windows or photoshop, they are options that you can buy. If you pirate them, you are stealing. Even if it leads to you and all your friends buying the product later, you still stole it to begin with.

What are your options? Easy, you can put pressure on them to change their terms. Writing is a good start, but eventually your wallet needs to do the talking. Same with proprietary software. Use FOSS software if you want to send a message. Support artists that have control of their music and give you more rights to distribute it.

Look, I agree with all of you that the MPAA and RIAA are at best unscrupulous organizations. But you have no right to their product unless you agree to their terms. You need to fight it by flat out refusing their products until they change. Otherwise, no matter how despicable they are, you are still stealing.

And as for how much it hurts them, you are right, it probably doesn't hurt them to much. But lots of laws don't really hurt people when you break them, but that doesn't mean you don't have to follow them.

I don't care if people pirate music or software (its not like I've never done it... but i try to avoid it), I care that they believe they have a right to do it because someone else is charging too much. Its called the free market and capitalism. If you don't like the price, buy something else. Thats how it works. If you can't admit that what you are doing is stealing, thats where the issue is.

reyfer
August 7th, 2007, 03:15 PM
Stealing (theft)= the unauthorized taking and keeping of another's property, with the intent of depriving the owner of its posession.

So, do filesharers take the music away from RIAA? There was a study here last year, that proved that 90% of the people that downloaded music via P2P ended up buying the CDs. So I don't see the stealing factor there.

igknighted
August 7th, 2007, 03:18 PM
Stealing (theft)= the unauthorized taking and keeping of another's property, with the intent of depriving the owner of its posession.

So, do filesharers take the music away from RIAA? There was a study here last year, that proved that 90% of the people that downloaded music via P2P ended up buying the CDs. So I don't see the stealing factor there.

So pirating software isn't stealing? Just because it doesn't fit word for word into a definition created in a pre-internet world doesn't mean that its not stealing.

igknighted
August 7th, 2007, 03:21 PM
The RIAA will latch on to anything that doesn't cost them money, ie: PlayReady or whatever else MS will institute for DRM... When these two forces combine (billions upon billions of dollars) any government will collapse, they will also find ways of explanation to validate how it is not infringing the end-users liberties, etc, etc... They will also lobby & litigate informing the government that file-sharing services sole purpose is to distribute copyrighted materials, a'la Napster... Ahh, this just burns my rear...

In the end, we as consumers have the power to stop it. This is capitalism baby. We shouldn't expect the government or any other body to step in. If it adversely affects us we can just stop buying it. Spread the word, make people care... don't just swap files, thats not helping anything.

curuxz
August 7th, 2007, 03:21 PM
They are offering a product, with a certain price and certain terms and conditions attached. You do not have any right to have the product, its a luxury that you can buy, should you pay what they ask and agree to their terms. The same with proprietary software. You do not have the right to windows or photoshop, they are options that you can buy. If you pirate them, you are stealing. Even if it leads to you and all your friends buying the product later, you still stole it to begin with.

What are your options? Easy, you can put pressure on them to change their terms. Writing is a good start, but eventually your wallet needs to do the talking. Same with proprietary software. Use FOSS software if you want to send a message. Support artists that have control of their music and give you more rights to distribute it.

Look, I agree with all of you that the MPAA and RIAA are at best unscrupulous organizations. But you have no right to their product unless you agree to their terms. You need to fight it by flat out refusing their products until they change. Otherwise, no matter how despicable they are, you are still stealing.

And as for how much it hurts them, you are right, it probably doesn't hurt them to much. But lots of laws don't really hurt people when you break them, but that doesn't mean you don't have to follow them.

I don't care if people pirate music or software (its not like I've never done it... but i try to avoid it), I care that they believe they have a right to do it because someone else is charging too much. Its called the free market and capitalism. If you don't like the price, buy something else. Thats how it works. If you can't admit that what you are doing is stealing, thats where the issue is.

I am certainly not saying i or anyone has a RIGHT to download anything, what I am saying is that it is not stealing, theft or piracy to download music or films, its IP infringement which is a civil matter. They are not selling you a physical product they are selling you a convince and if you take liberty with that and assume you have a right without paying to use it they have a right to claim that money back. My problem is with 'damages' because it does not damage them beyond the loss of your sale and since its a civil not criminal matter they can only be expected to be restored to their original entitlement NO DAMAGES.

Their problem is that millions of people are screwing them 50p at a time and it costs too much to take on each file sharer so they abuse the law and try and scare, sue and lobby their way into damaging my freedoms when using P2P to download free and open content and they throw around legal terms that are wrong.

DOWNLOAD MUSIC IS NOT PIRACY...FACT, until they stop treating it like piracy they are always going to have problems!

curuxz
August 7th, 2007, 03:24 PM
So pirating software isn't stealing? Just because it doesn't fit word for word into a definition created in a pre-internet world doesn't mean that its not stealing.

We are talking about legal cases here and the music and film people suing, so yes if it does not fit the definition it is not happening.

Pirating software IS stealing, they are NOT pirating they are DOWNLOADING, whole different ball game, see my above post :)

reyfer
August 7th, 2007, 03:30 PM
So pirating software isn't stealing? Just because it doesn't fit word for word into a definition created in a pre-internet world doesn't mean that its not stealing.

Sorry to tell you this, but that definition created in a pre-internet world IS THE LAW and it is the definition they ARE using. So if it doesn't fit.....

igknighted
August 7th, 2007, 03:30 PM
We are talking about legal cases here and the music and film people suing, so yes if it does not fit the definition it is not happening.

Pirating software IS stealing, they are NOT pirating they are DOWNLOADING, whole different ball game, see my above post :)

I fail to see any difference. If I download and use photoshop which I don't own, or if I download and listen to a new 50cent album (no, I would never download fitty... just an example), how is there any difference aside from the price? And while the price difference would take it from petty larceny to grand larceny (possibly... is photoshop cs3 over $1000 now?), I fail to see any difference between the two scenarios.

curuxz
August 7th, 2007, 03:33 PM
I fail to see any difference. If I download and use photoshop which I don't own, or if I download and listen to a new 50cent album (no, I would never download fitty... just an example), how is there any difference aside from the price? And while the price difference would take it from petty larceny to grand larceny (possibly... is photoshop cs3 over $1000 now?), I fail to see any difference between the two scenarios.

There is not a difference, both of those are IP infringement and the only thing they can do is sue you (in a civil court) for the money you would have had to pay to get them legally plus the legal costs.

Now if you burn fitty onto CD and start selling it THEN its theft because you have assumed the right of the owner (the right to sell) and that IS Piracy! Thats when you get in trouble.

Now they are trying to get the piracy/theft rules to apply to ALL downloads which they don't

igknighted
August 7th, 2007, 03:35 PM
Sorry to tell you this, but that definition created in a pre-internet world IS THE LAW and it is the definition they ARE using. So if it doesn't fit.....

I'm pretty sure the word "stealing" isn't in the law, nice try though. The definition of Theft, from the california state penal code:


484. (a) Every person who shall feloniously steal, take, carry,
lead, or drive away the personal property of another, or who shall
fraudulently appropriate property which has been entrusted to him or
her, or who shall knowingly and designedly, by any false or
fraudulent representation or pretense, defraud any other person of
money, labor or real or personal property, or who causes or procures
others to report falsely of his or her wealth or mercantile character
and by thus imposing upon any person, obtains credit and thereby
fraudulently gets or obtains possession of money, or property or
obtains the labor or service of another, is guilty of theft.

Sure seems like downloading music fits in this definition.

EDIT: Also, even if it is just IP violation... how does that make it any better?

reyfer
August 7th, 2007, 03:43 PM
Sorry, care to explain where in

feloniously steal, take, carry,
lead, or drive away the personal property of another, or who shall
fraudulently appropriate property which has been entrusted to him or
her, or who shall knowingly and designedly, by any false or
fraudulent representation or pretense, defraud any other person of
money, labor or real or personal property, or who causes or procures
others to report falsely of his or her wealth or mercantile character
and by thus imposing upon any person, obtains credit and thereby
fraudulently gets or obtains possession of money, or property or
obtains the labor or service of another, is guilty of theft.
is downloading implied? By the way, I changed the color and size of that word you were pretty sure was not on the law, just in case you did not notice it before

curuxz
August 7th, 2007, 03:43 PM
I'm pretty sure the word "stealing" isn't in the law, nice try though. The definition of Theft, from the california state penal code:


484. (a) Every person who shall feloniously steal, take, carry,
lead, or drive away the personal property of another, or who shall
fraudulently appropriate property which has been entrusted to him or
her, or who shall knowingly and designedly, by any false or
fraudulent representation or pretense, defraud any other person of
money, labor or real or personal property, or who causes or procures
others to report falsely of his or her wealth or mercantile character
and by thus imposing upon any person, obtains credit and thereby
fraudulently gets or obtains possession of money, or property or
obtains the labor or service of another, is guilty of theft.

Sure seems like downloading music fits in this definition.


Well it IS in mine "Theft Act 1968" (UK) and like the definition posted above your still not stealing when you download music or software or films, stealing is a criminal offence.

To deal with your above quote:

"Every person who shall feloniously steal, take, carry,
lead, or drive away the personal property of another" well you have not done that since they still have it.

"fraudulently appropriate property which has been entrusted to him or
her, or who shall knowingly and designedly, by any false or
fraudulent representation or pretense," nope you did not do that either (unless you phoned the record company up and tried to trick them into email you the music so you download it ;) )

"defraud any other person of money, labor or real or personal property," again you have not TAKEN money from them, they did not have your money to start with remember ;)

" or who causes or procures others to report falsely of his or her wealth or mercantile character
and by thus imposing upon any person, obtains credit and thereby
fraudulently gets or obtains possession of money, or property or
obtains the labor or service of another, is guilty of theft." and you certainly have not done this.

Trust me your above quote PROVES its not stealing. the law is a very precise thing and certain words have specific legal meanings. theft should not be thrown around lightly it is serious.

Please dont misunderstand me, download is still wrong its just not theft or piracy :)

juxtaposed
August 7th, 2007, 03:43 PM
Granted a car is worth more than a music file, but none the less you are stealing. Period, end of story.

Copying is not stealing. It is infringing on an absurd artificial concept called copyright.

Sure, you can try to change the definition of stealing for the bebefit of the pro-copyright anti-freedom people, but whatever...


We shouldn't expect the government or any other body to step in.

But the government is stepping in, enforcing copyright law, an odd hybrid of posession and non posession favoring the record compaines and film studios.

If you sell something to someone don't try to retain control over it. Period. You have no right to do so.

dca
August 7th, 2007, 03:45 PM
Not to add:

The ONLY legal use of copying ANYTHING (music CDs, software, movie DVD, etc, etc) is if you create a copy for yourself (to place in your car or whatever, archiving) and keep the original in its case in your library. Any other duplication done outside of the above is against the law and violates copyright. Period. That is how they guage piracy or theft, if it goes against the above you are in violation.

igknighted
August 7th, 2007, 03:48 PM
Copying is not stealing. It is infringing on an absurd artificial concept called copyright.

Sure, you can try to change the definition of stealing for the bebefit of the pro-copyright anti-freedom people, but whatever...



But the government is stepping in, enforcing copyright law, an odd hybrid of posession and non posession favoring the record compaines and film studios.

If you sell something to someone don't try to retain control over it. Period. You have no right to do so.

Sure you do, if you say beforehand "these are the terms under which you agree to buy this under...". If you do not agree to the terms, don't buy it. Your choice. You are not agreeing to buy the song, you are agreeing to buy a license to listen to the song, and that license is non-transferable and all that legal mumbo-jumbo. If you want to actually buy the song, or a less restrictive license, then search out someone who is willing to issue such a license (and has the legal right to do so) and buy from them. Just because you don't like the restrictions doesn't make them any less real.

Tomosaur
August 7th, 2007, 03:49 PM
I'm pretty sure the word "stealing" isn't in the law, nice try though. The definition of Theft, from the california state penal code:


484. (a) Every person who shall feloniously steal, take, carry,
lead, or drive away the personal property of another, or who shall
fraudulently appropriate property which has been entrusted to him or
her, or who shall knowingly and designedly, by any false or
fraudulent representation or pretense, defraud any other person of
money, labor or real or personal property, or who causes or procures
others to report falsely of his or her wealth or mercantile character
and by thus imposing upon any person, obtains credit and thereby
fraudulently gets or obtains possession of money, or property or
obtains the labor or service of another, is guilty of theft.

Sure seems like downloading music fits in this definition.

EDIT: Also, even if it is just IP violation... how does that make it any better?

Which is why the European decisions are so important. America != The World. As long as the entertainment industry continues treating everyone as if they're an American citizen, and threatening people with legal action for laws which don't apply to them, then they're going to be facing ridicule and spite. Just look at The Pirate Bay. They know what they're doing is illegal in America, but it is NOT illegal for them to be doing it in the country the do it.

If American companies continue to lobby European courts to change their position, then all they're going to do is drive a big fat wedge between themselves and their European customers. If they don't want European people copying 'their' music - then they should lobby their OWN government to ban exports and the internet. If they're not going to do that, then they should get their head out of their asses and change the industry so that the customers and the artists get a fair deal.

igknighted
August 7th, 2007, 03:53 PM
Not to add:

The ONLY legal use of copying ANYTHING (music CDs, software, movie DVD, etc, etc) is if you create a copy for yourself (to place in your car or whatever, archiving) and keep the original in its case in your library. Any other duplication done outside of the above is against the law and violates copyright. Period. That is how they guage piracy or theft, if it goes against the above you are in violation.

Thank you DCA. Look, I despise what the RIAA and MPAA does as much as anyone. But, they are on solid legal ground. The system is what it is. But as I have said a million times, use your wallet. This is how you break them: buy muy music that is not as restricted and not supporting the RIAA. Pirating just gets you what you want, it is a selfish out. Lets work together to change things, support sites like Jamendo and stores like Magnatune. There is just as much good music out there, you just wont hear it on the radio.

reyfer
August 7th, 2007, 03:56 PM
Exactly what Tomosaur said. One of the bigger problems here is the fact that US companies want to use US laws outside the US (I refuse to use the term America or American to apply for US alone, since America is a whole continent and Mexicans, Colombians, Venezuelans, Brazilians, Argentinians, etc... are Americans too, being in that continent)

curuxz
August 7th, 2007, 03:56 PM
Which is why the European decisions are so important. America != The World. As long as the entertainment industry continues treating everyone as if they're an American citizen, and threatening people with legal action for laws which don't apply to them, then they're going to be facing ridicule and spite. Just look at The Pirate Bay. They know what they're doing is illegal in America, but it is NOT illegal for them to be doing it in the country the do it.

If American companies continue to lobby European courts to change their position, then all they're going to do is drive a big fat wedge between themselves and their European customers. If they don't want European people copying 'their' music - then they should lobby their OWN government to ban exports and the internet. If they're not going to do that, then they should get their head out of their asses and change the industry so that the customers and the artists get a fair deal.

your quite right, and driving a wedge is just what they are doing, just look at the EU vs Microsoft, Europe is much harder to bribe a lobby than congress (no offence to America I think we all have messed up political systems that dont work, yours just happens to be a particularly bad example).

The EU is getting sick and tired of American companies throwing their weight around and thinking they can put money first, you have to remember that for better or worse the EU is much much more socialist than USA.

to igkighted, IP violation is not just as bad because its not a criminal offence, its civil, that does not make it OK by a long stretch it just means that you cant punish people for it only restore them to what they should have done.

EDIT: please asume american i am talking about USA, because I agree with the above post american is not just USA

juxtaposed
August 7th, 2007, 03:58 PM
Just because you don't like the restrictions doesn't make them any less real.

Psuedo-posession made to benefit rich corporations... It's all artificial

To any record companies: If you disaprove of what someone does with what you sell to them, don't sell it to them. It's like if you have an idea. How do you stop other people from using this idea? Don't tell it to them.

igknighted
August 7th, 2007, 04:03 PM
Fair enough... local laws always take precedence. I still maintain it is wrong and that to really enact change you need to stop pirating, but if it is not "illegal" per se in europe, then you are on more stable ground than I would be here in the US.

Sidenote: I did start this mess, and for that I apologize. But overall, I learned a great deal and that was probably the most civil of all the "intense debates" I have been involved with online... congrats all.

curuxz
August 7th, 2007, 04:04 PM
Thank you DCA. Look, I despise what the RIAA and MPAA does as much as anyone. But, they are on solid legal ground. The system is what it is. But as I have said a million times, use your wallet. This is how you break them: buy muy music that is not as restricted and not supporting the RIAA. Pirating just gets you what you want, it is a selfish out. Lets work together to change things, support sites like Jamendo and stores like Magnatune. There is just as much good music out there, you just wont hear it on the radio.

Firstly DCA is wrong, in the UK at least anyway, its still not allowed to make a 'backup' even for personal use, this is something they are trying to change but have not yet.

Your still missing the point IMHO, its not about whats wrong or right its about the record compaines over stepping the mark, if you stole something and they arrested you for murder i think you would be annoyed that you were being punished for something you had not done. its the same here, your not stealing your infringing they have a right to your money and i agree vote with your wallet but they dont have a right to punish you or use DRM or collect private data and they destroy their own right to IP protection by abusing our rights

curuxz
August 7th, 2007, 04:06 PM
Fair enough... local laws always take precedence. I still maintain it is wrong and that to really enact change you need to stop pirating, but if it is not "illegal" per se in europe, then you are on more stable ground than I would be here in the US.

Sidenote: I did start this mess, and for that I apologize. But overall, I learned a great deal and that was probably the most civil of all the "intense debates" I have been involved with online... congrats all.

Sorry just one final point, Im not having a flame or anything just want to be clear on what im saying.

It IS ILLEGAL in the EU and UK, its just that its not CRIMINAL to download music.

There is a big difference and the record companies need to recognise that.

Good thread tho :)

tigerpants
August 7th, 2007, 04:06 PM
Yadda yadda yadda

Heard all these ridiculous arguments and comparisions and definitions before and it all means squat.

What is wrong is the way in which music is owned, distributed and consumed. It's always been wrong, its just now those that own and distribute are losing a little of that absolute control they had before.

This is all about, once again, punishing the end user/consumer for the screw ups of record companies, media distributors and their war with genuine pirates who are producing copies of work and not passing the profits to the artist - which is something I am against.

Th recording artists I know (and I know quite a few) are more than happy to have people share their music via filesharing programs. They don't have an issue with it at all. Record companies are just looking for a scapegoat for their congenital stupidity and lack of brains about stopping real piracy as operated by criminal cartels.

Treating the consumer as an enemy will result in a whole world of pain for record companies, distributors, and companies like Apple and MS who validate it through their products. Its all about control, not about the rights of the artists or the copyright holders.

If record companies and movie execs genuinely cared about the creative artists working for them, like they pretend to do in public, they'd give more to the artists themselves and stop screwing them over. At the moment, they shaft the artist and the consumer. Its time to change that.

curuxz
August 7th, 2007, 04:16 PM
Yadda yadda yadda

Heard all these ridiculous arguments and comparisions and definitions before and it all means squat.

What is wrong is the way in which music is owned, distributed and consumed. It's always been wrong, its just now those that own and distribute are losing a little of that absolute control they had before.

This is all about, once again, punishing the end user/consumer for the screw ups of record companies, media distributors and their war with genuine pirates who are producing copies of work and not passing the profits to the artist - which is something I am against.

Th recording artists I know (and I know quite a few) are more than happy to have people share their music via filesharing programs. They don't have an issue with it at all. Record companies are just looking for a scapegoat for their congenital stupidity and lack of brains about stopping real piracy as operated by criminal cartels.

Treating the consumer as an enemy will result in a whole world of pain for record companies, distributors, and companies like Apple and MS who validate it through their products. Its all about control, not about the rights of the artists or the copyright holders.

If record companies and movie execs genuinely cared about the creative artists working for them, like they pretend to do in public, they'd give more to the artists themselves and stop screwing them over. At the moment, they shaft the artist and the consumer. Its time to change that.

Well these definitions certainly mean something! lol they are legal fact.

I agree the music industry is reaping the rewards of its own greed and deserves to get screwed. But collecting private data and things like DRM are totally unacceptable and do nothing to stop the actual pirates who profit from p2p by selling bootleg copies of cd's and dvd's!

They need to stop punishing consumers for their problems and if they are so concerned about piracy why dont they donate money to the police to break up the criminal gangs since those are the people they really want, I know lots of artists too and im yet to meet one that has a problem with home users downloading music.

The only way to make them change in my view is to have the governments remind them they are wrong and home users are not their targets. Thats what the EU is trying to do but congress has become brought out and is doing the opposite helping them wage war on their customers :(

dca
August 7th, 2007, 04:19 PM
Exactly what Tomosaur said. One of the bigger problems here is the fact that US companies want to use US laws outside the US (I refuse to use the term America or American to apply for US alone, since America is a whole continent and Mexicans, Colombians, Venezuelans, Brazilians, Argentinians, etc... are Americans too, being in that continent)

...hmmm, people in South America have their own music, their own movies, their own 'OIL', their own everything. Listen and watch that...

reyfer
August 7th, 2007, 04:20 PM
...hmmm, people in South America have their own music, their own movies, their own 'OIL', their own everything. Listen and watch that...

Uhmmm.....what?

dca
August 7th, 2007, 04:23 PM
Uhmmm.....what?

US companies will use US laws outisde of the US... It's their property.... Now, if you're referring to foreign companies attempting to adopt the philosophies of US companies, than I apologize...

curuxz
August 7th, 2007, 04:25 PM
US companies will use US laws outisde of the US... It's their property.... Now, if you're referring to foreign companies attempting to adopt the philosophies of US companies, than I apologize...

Your bound by the law of the country you do business in NOT your home country, if you buy online then you are engaging in business on their soil so then US law DOES apply but if they, like they are, sell in EU shops then US laws mean nothing and nothing will change that, its EU law.

reyfer
August 7th, 2007, 04:28 PM
US companies will use US laws outisde of the US... It's their property.... Now, if you're referring to foreign companies attempting to adopt the philosophies of US companies, than I apologize...

I'm talking about US companies trying to have courts in other countries use US laws over their own local laws. Not a thing about "philosophies of US companies". McDonalds is a US company, but to operate in Venezuela they have to follow Venezuelan law. Now you understand?

darksong
August 7th, 2007, 04:30 PM
A prime example of common sence prevaling and an example of the entertainment industry's greed. If i see a friend with a good movie he/she has downloaded, i will most probably go out and purchase it for a better quality experience. The entertainment industry have probably made more sells through the odd person getting a movie free and showing it off.

dca
August 7th, 2007, 04:33 PM
I'm talking about US companies trying to have courts in other countries use US laws over their own local laws. Not a thing about "philosophies of US companies". McDonalds is a US company, but to operate in Venezuela they have to follow Venezuelan law. Now you understand?

Meaning that if you illegaly copy a movie from Universal or copy a Madonna song from Virgin, etc, etc, than because those companies are based out of the US, they can't come after you because there are no laws in Venezuela?

curuxz
August 7th, 2007, 04:37 PM
Meaning that if you illegaly copy a movie from Universal or copy a Madonna song from Virgin, etc, etc, than because those companies are based out of the US, they can't come after you because there are no laws in Venezuela?

Why do you think pirate bay is still there ;)

igknighted
August 7th, 2007, 04:39 PM
Meaning that if you illegaly copy a movie from Universal or copy a Madonna song from Virgin, etc, etc, than because those companies are based out of the US, they can't come after you because there are no laws in Venezuela?

It's shady territory. I don't think there is a right answer yet. The only solution is for countries to get together and agree on some common laws to be held internationally, but in that wont happen any time soon. So the US companies will continue to push the US to try to enforce its laws overseas where it suits them and it will be up to these countries to decide whether or not to resist.

Personally, I think once you distribute a file to a US citizen, even via the internet, you are at the mercy of US law. But I have no idea if that would hold up. So if there was a european only file-sharing network and the laws in europe allowed this, they would be free from prosecution. But if they shared files with Americans (as in USA) then they would need to respect US laws. This is hard to prove, but if they can prove it then I think they could prosecute. NOTE: IANAL.

igknighted
August 7th, 2007, 04:41 PM
Why do you think pirate bay is still there ;)

Thats different. Imagine you own an open-air market, and someone trades guns illegally or something in your market... are you liable? IANAL, but I do not think so. Just because you have an online market does not suddenly make you liable for such illegal trading. After all, the site has many legal uses as well.

dca
August 7th, 2007, 04:42 PM
It's shady territory. I don't think there is a right answer yet. The only solution is for countries to get together and agree on some common laws to be held internationally, but in that wont happen any time soon. So the US companies will continue to push the US to try to enforce its laws overseas where it suits them and it will be up to these countries to decide whether or not to resist.

Personally, I think once you distribute a file to a US citizen, even via the internet, you are at the mercy of US law. But I have no idea if that would hold up. So if there was a european only file-sharing network and the laws in europe allowed this, they would be free from prosecution. But if they shared files with Americans (as in USA) then they would need to respect US laws. This is hard to prove, but if they can prove it then I think they could prosecute. NOTE: IANAL.

Exactly, you don't follow US law, than no Madonna for you! :)

curuxz
August 7th, 2007, 04:43 PM
It's shady territory. I don't think there is a right answer yet. The only solution is for countries to get together and agree on some common laws to be held internationally, but in that wont happen any time soon. So the US companies will continue to push the US to try to enforce its laws overseas where it suits them and it will be up to these countries to decide whether or not to resist.

Personally, I think once you distribute a file to a US citizen, even via the internet, you are at the mercy of US law. But I have no idea if that would hold up. So if there was a european only file-sharing network and the laws in europe allowed this, they would be free from prosecution. But if they shared files with Americans (as in USA) then they would need to respect US laws. This is hard to prove, but if they can prove it then I think they could prosecute. NOTE: IANAL.

well thats why there is a network of agreements to enforce laws internationally however like i keep saying they run into problems because they go futher than the law allows and try and do things like get records from ISP's which if they should not be able to get!

dca
August 7th, 2007, 04:45 PM
well thats why there is a network of agreements to enforce laws internationally however like i keep saying they run into problems because they go futher than the law allows and try and do things like get records from ISP's which if they should not be able to get!

And the funny thing is the only law in China that works is the MS license laws against piracy... Anybody over there want a copy of Madonna's new album?

curuxz
August 7th, 2007, 04:46 PM
Thats different. Imagine you own an open-air market, and someone trades guns illegally or something in your market... are you liable? IANAL, but I do not think so. Just because you have an online market does not suddenly make you liable for such illegal trading. After all, the site has many legal uses as well.

actually lol... hate to keep arguing with you (really not doing just for the hell of it) but you ARE liable. any business conducted on your premises is your responsibility. now your open air market thing is a bit mixed up because they are criminally trading guns so they would be done for it but say in your open air market there was fraud going on, then you would be sued for any money they managed to get :)

reyfer
August 7th, 2007, 04:54 PM
Exactly, you don't follow US law, than no Madonna for you! :)

I'm sorry, but that's the kind of attitude that has 80% of the world hating the US. I don't have to follow US law to enjoy Madonna. I have laws in my country to deal with piracy. I don't need US law there. If you don't like it, don't ever leave US soil, because, you see, even if it is something completely unbelievable to you and will probably be the end of the your universe, OTHER COUNTRIES HAVE THEIR OWN LAWS AND ONCE YOU'RE ON THEIR SOIL YOU ARE UNDER THOSE LAWS.

igknighted
August 7th, 2007, 04:57 PM
actually lol... hate to keep arguing with you (really not doing just for the hell of it) but you ARE liable. any business conducted on your premises is your responsibility. now your open air market thing is a bit mixed up because they are criminally trading guns so they would be done for it but say in your open air market there was fraud going on, then you would be sued for any money they managed to get :)

Even if you just own a nice, wide open courtyard and let people peddle goods there? I wasn't aware that you could be held liable for transactions there. If thats the case, and since piratebay does serve files to US citizens, I would imagine that they could be prosecuted. Interesting.


Exactly, you don't follow US law, than no Madonna for you!
Not necessarily... if that copy of madonna was sold in Europe, and hence under European laws, it could (assuming sharing is legal where it was sold) be shared legally until it was shared to a country where it isn't legal. Once you share a file with a US citizen you open yourself up, but share it with your european friends and US laws never come into play.

curuxz
August 7th, 2007, 04:57 PM
Besides Madonna resides in the UK so she is technically under uk law :lolflag:

curuxz
August 7th, 2007, 04:59 PM
Even if you just own a nice, wide open courtyard and let people peddle goods there? I wasn't aware that you could be held liable for transactions there. If thats the case, and since piratebay does serve files to US citizens, I would imagine that they could be prosecuted. Interesting.


Not necessarily... if that copy of madonna was sold in Europe, and hence under European laws, it could (assuming sharing is legal where it was sold) be shared legally until it was shared to a country where it isn't legal. Once you share a file with a US citizen you open yourself up, but share it with your european friends and US laws never come into play.

Yeah its true, there are lots of cases to back it up. be very careful what goes on in places you control

tho im not giving legal advice by my posts just things i know ;)

igknighted
August 7th, 2007, 05:00 PM
I'm sorry, but that's the kind of attitude that has 80% of the world hating the US. I don't have to follow US law to enjoy Madonna. I have laws in my country to deal with piracy. I don't need US law there. If you don't like it, don't ever leave US soil, because, you see, even if it is something completely unbelievable and will probably be the end of the universe, OTHER COUNTRIES HAVE THEIR OWN LAWS AND ONCE YOUR IN THEIR SOIL YOU ARE UNDER THOSE LAWS.

Yes, but if US record companies don't want to sell madonna under the laws of your country they do not have to. But once they agree to do so, then you are 100% right. They need to respect the laws of that country. Even then, that doesn't mean they cannot ask the courts to allow them to do stuff like get names from ISPs. In my mind, its perfectly fine to ask, thats why the courts are there. To interpret the laws. Once the courts have spoken, however, the record companies have to accept that or not sell music there. Whether they respect the decision or not remains to be seen.

igknighted
August 7th, 2007, 05:01 PM
Yeah its true, there are lots of cases to back it up. be very careful what goes on in places you control

tho im not giving legal advice by my posts just things i know ;)

I guess thats why I preface with IANAL ;)

juxtaposed
August 7th, 2007, 05:02 PM
and since piratebay does serve files to US citizens, I would imagine that they could be prosecuted.

The Pirate Bay is legal under swedish law. Sure, american corporations expect TPB to be subject to the DMCA (as shown here: thepiratebay.org/legal), which is american law, but they arn't.

igknighted
August 7th, 2007, 05:04 PM
The Pirate Bay is legal under swedish law. Sure, american corporations expect TPB to be subject to the DMCA (as shown here: thepiratebay.org/legal), which is american law, but they arn't.

By serving files to US citizens, they should be held to equal standards as a market on US soil (note that this is a personal opinion, not a legal opinion). The internet is everywhere, it makes no difference where your servers are located. By allowing connections from the US to download things that are illegal there, you should be subject to its laws then (at least regarding those transactions).

reyfer
August 7th, 2007, 05:11 PM
I want to sue Smith & Wesson. A guy used a Smith & Wesson gun to kill my cousin. Smith & Wesson made that gun available to him. They should be made accountable for what people THEY DON'T KNOW do with the product they make available. Is that similar to what you're saying?

Depressed Man
August 7th, 2007, 05:13 PM
Ideally that would make sense but it soon falls apart as every country would be expecting every other company to folllow their laws. Which would eventually result in company's only being able to do business in their own countries.

Which would be pretty amusing for those who don't like capitalism and what it does to mankind.

juxtaposed
August 7th, 2007, 05:15 PM
By serving files to US citizens, they should be held to equal standards as a market on US soil (note that this is a personal opinion, not a legal opinion).

Laws conflict. If a website was subject to the laws of every country that it had users from then it would be really messed up.

What you're saying is just crazy :P


it makes no difference where your servers are located.

It does, actually.


you should be subject to its laws then (at least regarding those transactions).

So a website would have to have a different version of their site for every country that has different laws?

American laws apply in America. Swedish laws apply in Sweden. The Pirate Bay is in sweden, therefore swedish laws apply to The Pirate Bay. American laws might apply to the American users of TPB, but not to the web site its self.

It's just like AllofMP3 (except TPB doesn't host anything copyrighted on their servers, just meta data and such). It was legal in russia, but not in america, but guess what? It was in russia, not america. Unfortunatly america succeded in getting the russians to take it down :/

reyfer
August 7th, 2007, 05:16 PM
By serving files to US citizens, they should be held to equal standards as a market on US soil (note that this is a personal opinion, not a legal opinion). The internet is everywhere, it makes no difference where your servers are located. By allowing connections from the US to download things that are illegal there, you should be subject to its laws then (at least regarding those transactions).

By allowing connections from China (or Vietnam, or Saudi Arabia) to download things that may be illegal in those countries (like civil rights pamphlets), US companies should be subject to those countries laws, right?

Tmi
August 7th, 2007, 05:21 PM
By serving files to US citizens, they should be held to equal standards as a market on US soil (note that this is a personal opinion, not a legal opinion). The internet is everywhere, it makes no difference where your servers are located. By allowing connections from the US to download things that are illegal there, you should be subject to its laws then (at least regarding those transactions).

How can they be held accountable if a US citizen choses to download from their service when he knows it's illegal? It's then the US citizen that does something illegal, not sites like TPB. In Sweden it is perfectly legal what they do. If someone somewhere else uses their service for illegal purpose then it's not their fault.

It's a bit like saying that you could be held accountable for "government criticism" in some country just because a citizen of that country read your homepage where you happened to mention something that the government of that country doesn't like it's citizens to see.

dca
August 7th, 2007, 05:27 PM
I want to sue Smith & Wesson. A guy used a Smith & Wesson gun to kill my cousin. Smith & Wesson made that gun available to him. They should be made accountable for what people THEY DON'T KNOW do with the product they make available. Is that similar to what you're saying?

No, of course not. If S&W was shipped to a country that supports communism or terrorism than somehow it was someone within that country that got it there... Blame them... US companies do not want to rely on foreign countries to police their goods because they know what a bang-up job they do.

dca
August 7th, 2007, 05:30 PM
How can they be held accountable if a US citizen choses to download from their service when he knows it's illegal? It's then the US citizen that does something illegal, not sites like TPB. In Sweden it is perfectly legal what they do. If someone somewhere else uses their service for illegal purpose then it's not their fault.

It's a bit like saying that you could be held accountable for "government criticism" in some country just because a citizen of that country read your homepage where you happened to mention something that the government of that country doesn't like it's citizens to see.

Because the WWW is one big file sharing service...

All this will cause is heightened DRM on all materials mostly affecting citizens in the US which in the end will affect the rest of the world.

reyfer
August 7th, 2007, 05:31 PM
No, of course not. If S&W was shipped to a country that supports communism or terrorism than somehow it was someone within that country that got it there... Blame them... US companies do not want to rely on foreign countries to police their goods because they know what a bang-up job they do.

And yet, you keep proving why the rest of the world thinks people in the US are full of crap. Sorry for that, but it is people as closed minded as you that make the rest look bad.

jgrabham
August 7th, 2007, 05:34 PM
yay, I think, Am I in europe or not these days :/

jrusso2
August 7th, 2007, 05:35 PM
I am an American citizen and I think the Europeans are way ahead of us. This battle needs to be fought now before we lose all our rights and our PC becomes so locked down that we can no longer use it the way we want to.

Depressed Man
August 7th, 2007, 05:44 PM
Haha the only problem with that is the EU is leaning more on the socialism side. Which is why big corporations like Microsoft and cartels (or organizations if you rather call them that) aren't liked very much. While the US is more on the business side of things. The closest we can get is when Democrats occasionally get into power. And even then that's not going do anything sometimes because companies in America can "donate" money to campaigns of politicans. Which influences them.

Actually they might as well call them bribes.

Though I think both the EU and the US should take some lessons from each other. They need to find a nice middle balance. It's not yin or yang, it's yin yang.

dca
August 7th, 2007, 06:03 PM
And yet, you keep proving why the rest of the world thinks people in the US are full of crap. Sorry for that, but it is people as closed minded as you that make the rest look bad.

People in the rest of the world think we're full of crap because we have everything they want! Freedom, entertainment, etc, etc. And now because the entertainment companies want to protect their product the rest of the world throws up their hands and cries? C'mon, don't worry about what the US does anymore. I'm not fond of our foreign policy so let's see other countries step up. Until then I don't think anybody (including Americans) should have any questions as to why DRM is coming in a big way... Just think, Sony is jumping up & down for joy because they don't have to be sued for ruining your PCs...

dca
August 7th, 2007, 06:05 PM
Which is why big corporations like Microsoft and cartels (or organizations if you rather call them that) aren't liked very much.

Well, it doesn't help being thrown into court for monopoly & anti-trust violations...

Epilonsama
August 7th, 2007, 06:06 PM
I wish the US where more like the european in electronic terms, cuz here the goverment wants to transform the internet into another television service.

dca
August 7th, 2007, 06:17 PM
I wish the US where more like the european in electronic terms, cuz here the goverment wants to transform the internet into another television service.

As long as we don't have to switch to the metric system! :)

lepz
August 7th, 2007, 06:18 PM
People in the rest of the world think we're full of crap because we have everything they want! Freedom, entertainment, etc, etc. .

I'm confused please help me out I'm just a pleb Brit from that backward
little island called the UK. Please tell me what I want from your great country that I don't already have. The entertainment bit we already got the freedom we have more than you, its the etc etc I was confused over.

jgrabham
August 7th, 2007, 06:18 PM
As long as we don't have to switch to the metric system! :)

HAHA

jgrabham
August 7th, 2007, 06:19 PM
I'm confused please help me out I'm just a pleb Brit from that backward
little island called the UK. Please tell me what I want from your great country that I don't already have. The entertainment bit we already got the freedom we have more than you, its the etc etc I was confused over.

The UK isn't an island, Britain is.

Ill shut up now

igknighted
August 7th, 2007, 06:20 PM
I'm confused please help me out I'm just a pleb Brit from that backward
little island called the UK. Please tell me what I want from your great country that I don't already have. The entertainment bit we already got the freedom we have more than you, its the etc etc I was confused over.

Yeah, but we talk about our freedom more than you, so therefor we must have more :). Plus, we invented it, patented it, and if you want to have it you have to pay us. Just ask an country that we've "rebuilt".

reyfer
August 7th, 2007, 06:22 PM
I'm confused please help me out I'm just a pleb Brit from that backward
little island called the UK. Please tell me what I want from your great country that I don't already have. The entertainment bit we already got the freedom we have more than you, its the etc etc I was confused over.

Maybe by the etc etc he means the right to be screwed by the almighty companies, I guess. Because the rest of his post is pure crap.

reyfer
August 7th, 2007, 06:24 PM
Yeah, but we talk about our freedom more than you, so therefor we must have more :). Plus, we invented it, patented it, and if you want to have it you have to pay us. Just ask an country that we've "rebuilt".

I'm sorry, but before you did, a little country named France had "LIBERTÉ, EGALITÉ, FRATERNITÉ" which was some years before the American Revolution and that finally led to the French Revolution.

lepz
August 7th, 2007, 06:25 PM
Yeah, but we talk about our freedom more than you, so therefor we must have more :). Plus, we invented it, patented it, and if you want to have it you have to pay us. Just ask an country that we've "rebuilt".

I hope your not referring to that LOAN your banks gave after my country was destroyed after ww2 we only just paid it all back (last year I think) with interest, nice little earner for you. :) This must be "The Special Relationship" we hear so much about?

igknighted
August 7th, 2007, 06:32 PM
I'm sorry, but before you did, a little country named France (I don't know if you've ever heard about them) had a revolution, and I guess in your "we invented and patented freedom" case, France can prove prior art with "LIBERTÉ, EGALITÉ, FRATERNITÉ"

You might want to check your facts, US Revolution 1776, French Revolution (where that phrase came from) 1789. I don't know if we had all the paperwork in by then though, we were too busy making faces at the brits across the St. Lawrence.

I digress...

I hate to ruin a good joke you guys, but my post was a little sarcastic. The whole point was the US acts like assholes and claims it is in "the name of freedom", an action I don't support or condone and frankly am rather embarassed by. It'd be nice to have someone like Obama or Ron Paul in office in '08 to hopefully stop this madness and listen to the rest of the world.

igknighted
August 7th, 2007, 06:34 PM
I hope your not referring to that LOAN your banks gave after my country was destroyed after ww2 we only just paid it all back (last year I think) with interest, nice little earner for you. :) This must be "The Special Relationship" we hear so much about?

It was a reference to the price Iraq and Latin America and all those other countries paid (mostly in lives of their young people) for the freedom that America decided they needed. I hadn't thought of the "Marshall Plan", but that fits too. Good call.

Ultra Magnus
August 7th, 2007, 06:35 PM
THats more of a case of the ISP giving in. The entertainment industy has to prove beyond doubt that filesharing is damaging sales - so far no one has been able to make that link. Several studies, one in Australia if I remember correctly, proved the opposite.

Its actually because file sharing isn't a criminal offense and ISPs don't have to give over data for civil cases or something like that.

reyfer
August 7th, 2007, 06:36 PM
You might want to check your facts, US Revolution 1776, French Revolution (where that phrase came from) 1789. I don't know if we had all the paperwork in by then though, we were too busy making faces at the brits across the St. Lawrence.

I digress...

I hate to ruin a good joke you guys, but my post was a little sarcastic. The whole point was the US acts like assholes and claims it is in "the name of freedom", an action I don't support or condone and frankly am rather embarassed by. It'd be nice to have someone like Obama or Ron Paul in office in '08 to hopefully stop this madness and listen to the rest of the world.

Good. And just for your information (and I edited my post accordingly) the LIBERTE,EGALITE,FRATERNITE manifesto was around before the American Revolution, but it was put on the spotlight during the French Revolution (I am a B.A. in History, Univerity of Rome, specialized in European History)

igknighted
August 7th, 2007, 06:39 PM
Good. And just for your information (and I edited my post accordingly) the LIBERTE,EGALITE,FRATERNITE manifesto was around before the American Revolution, but it was put on the spotlight during the French Revolution (I am a B.A. in History, Univerity of Rome, specialized in European History)

Fair enough, fine, we'll give the French a free license :)

IDK, the way they are giving out patents in the US these days we might just get it because we spell it differently. (yes, another joke)

lepz
August 7th, 2007, 06:40 PM
You might want to check your facts, US Revolution 1776, French Revolution (where that phrase came from) 1789. I don't know if we had all the paperwork in by then though, we were too busy making faces at the brits across the St. Lawrence.

I digress...

I hate to ruin a good joke you guys, but my post was a little sarcastic. The whole point was the US acts like assholes and claims it is in "the name of freedom", an action I don't support or condone and frankly am rather embarassed by. It'd be nice to have someone like Obama or Ron Paul in office in '08 to hopefully stop this madness and listen to the rest of the world.

1640-1648 English revolution, we achieved more freedom than either of the other two. :P

jgrabham
August 7th, 2007, 06:42 PM
1640-1648 English revolution, we achieved more freedom than either of the other two. :P

Plus peasants revolt, cant remember the dates though :]

EDIT - 1381

igknighted
August 7th, 2007, 06:45 PM
Plus peasants revolt, cant remember the dates though :]

EDIT - 1381

Hell, you guys could just pull out the Magna Carta... 1215 IIRC? It was my friends mile time in gym class, only way i remember (god, that was years ago... how do I remember this ****?)

dca
August 7th, 2007, 06:46 PM
I'm confused please help me out I'm just a pleb Brit from that backward
little island called the UK. Please tell me what I want from your great country that I don't already have. The entertainment bit we already got the freedom we have more than you, its the etc etc I was confused over.

I should not have included the EU in the rest of the world. They work for the US...

The point being, most of the complaints about the US are coming from people that are cry-babying about a) The US creates a product, b) a person in another country steals it, copies it, whatever c) because their laws in their country do not care about copyright, the US interferes and goes after them forcing that country to abide by the US laws or there-abouts. I don't see a problem, their gov should keep our crap out of their country. We all suffer in the end, hence DRM... You know what's funny, DRM will be instituted in the lowest form of component installed in a PC regardless of OS and it's only a matter of time.

lepz
August 7th, 2007, 06:51 PM
I should not have included the EU in the rest of the world. They work for the US...
.

Remember your place.......your just a hybrid immigrant with no culture and a lack of manners and education of the real world.

PS how's Mickey doing?
:lolflag:

dca
August 7th, 2007, 06:59 PM
Remember your place.......your just a hybrid immigrant with no culture and a lack of manners and education of the real world.

PS how's Mickey doing?
:lolflag:

Must've gotten that off a show from the BBC...

Mickey's okay, although, he's not too fond of all the pirated copies of 'Pirates of the Caribbean' that made it overseas... :)

lepz
August 7th, 2007, 07:02 PM
Must've gotten that off a show from the BBC...

Mickey's okay, although, he's not too fond of all the pirated copies of 'Pirates of the Caribbean' that made it overseas... :)

Nope straight off the top of my head. It's a Brit thing ...we call it **** take
;)

dca
August 7th, 2007, 07:04 PM
Ugh, maybe we should merge w/ this thread, too...

http://ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?t=518792

They're turning into the same thing...

lepz
August 7th, 2007, 07:24 PM
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/f/ff/Famousphotoche-cropped.jpg

Back on-topic viva la revolution long live Pirate Bay ;)

dca
August 7th, 2007, 07:48 PM
Agreed.

The more press it gets the more it will end up a Napster...

Tomosaur
August 7th, 2007, 07:56 PM
Agreed.

The more press it gets the more it will end up a Napster...

Perhaps if the US didn't produce such over-priced crap then people wouldn't be so tempted to "illegally" download it.

dca
August 7th, 2007, 07:57 PM
Perhaps if the US didn't produce such over-priced crap then people wouldn't be so tempted to "illegally" download it.

Over-priced crap? Be more specific, a Madonna CD is over-priced crap...

Tomosaur
August 7th, 2007, 08:08 PM
Over-priced crap? Be more specific, a Madonna CD is over-priced crap...

Music is over-priced, is the short and shrift of it. If people can get it for free, why would they pay so much for it?

Lower prices or generally better deals are what the mainstream music industry needs if it wants to win back consumer support. In Europe, we expect companies to suit the needs and desires of customers, not the other way around, which is basically why we don't care about what the US entertainment industry perceives to be 'unjust'. It's unjust for them to charge so much for what is basically 'average at best' material.

dca
August 7th, 2007, 08:16 PM
Music is over-priced, is the short and shrift of it. If people can get it for free, why would they pay so much for it?

Hence, DRM.



Lower prices or generally better deals are what the mainstream music industry needs if it wants to win back consumer support. In Europe, we expect companies to suit the needs and desires of customers, not the other way around, which is basically why we don't care about what the US entertainment industry perceives to be 'unjust'. It's unjust for them to charge so much for what is basically 'average at best' material.

So, I should pay 20 euro for a Mark Knopfler CD, and only forty p for a Madonna?

Tomosaur
August 7th, 2007, 08:33 PM
Hence, DRM.



So, I should pay 20 euro for a Mark Knopfler CD, and only forty p for a Madonna?

The US is not the only guilty party, but it certainly wields a lot of the market power, and hence gets to decide the 'average price', more or less.

As for your Madonna CDs, I think record companies should pay ME to take them off their hands.

dca
August 7th, 2007, 09:00 PM
The US is not the only guilty party, but it certainly wields a lot of the market power, and hence gets to decide the 'average price', more or less.

As for your Madonna CDs, I think record companies should pay ME to take them off their hands.

Nah, I actually paid the money for the Mark Knopfler... :)

Depressed Man
August 7th, 2007, 10:25 PM
I wish the US where more like the european in electronic terms, cuz here the goverment wants to transform the internet into another television service.

Our internet is lagging behind too. Even with the government giving telcos money to improve the lines (which they apparantly didn't?).

jgrabham
August 7th, 2007, 10:55 PM
I buy legal CDs from play.com for £5.99 (about 12 bucks)

SunnyRabbiera
August 7th, 2007, 11:15 PM
I wanna move to europe now...

smoker
August 7th, 2007, 11:38 PM
I wanna move to europe now...

you will be welcome:)

i'm afraid i never want to go to the US:(

kinematic
August 8th, 2007, 01:07 AM
If the entertainment industry would sell music and movies online for a fair price we wouldn't have this discussion but they have missed the internet boat and are now trying to save a dying business model.
They should set up an online service and sell a movie in DVD or high quality XviD format for 7-10 euro's and music with a choice in MP3,Ogg and wav at 5 euro's for a complete album and they'd still make millions and i guarantee people would buy it at those prices.
They could also sell artwork with it for let's say 75 euro cents so people can make their own covers for a CD or DVD case.

jgrabham
August 8th, 2007, 01:17 AM
If the entertainment industry would sell music and movies online for a fair price we wouldn't have this discussion but they have missed the internet boat and are now trying to save a dying business model.
They should set up an online service and sell a movie in DVD or high quality XviD format for 7-10 euro's and music with a choice in MP3,Ogg and wav at 5 euro's for a complete album and they'd still make millions and i guarantee people would buy it at those prices.
They could also sell artwork with it for let's say 75 euro cents so people can make their own covers for a CD or DVD case.

Exactly, everyone has all their music ripped to their PC anyway. Be nice to the environment and just skip out the plastic disk bit!

lepz
August 8th, 2007, 07:15 AM
Exactly, everyone has all their music ripped to their PC anyway. Be nice to the environment and just skip out the plastic disk bit!

Only one problem with that, well two actually, not everyone owns a pc,
Plus I think the carbon footprint of actually building a pc and the shipping to your home would be far higher than a couple of hundred cd/dvds with plastic sleeves.

Not to mention freedom of choice. or has that gone out the window? (eek I used the W word) :eek:

curuxz
August 8th, 2007, 07:17 AM
If the entertainment industry would sell music and movies online for a fair price we wouldn't have this discussion but they have missed the internet boat and are now trying to save a dying business model.
They should set up an online service and sell a movie in DVD or high quality XviD format for 7-10 euro's and music with a choice in MP3,Ogg and wav at 5 euro's for a complete album and they'd still make millions and i guarantee people would buy it at those prices.
They could also sell artwork with it for let's say 75 euro cents so people can make their own covers for a CD or DVD case.

Buying on disk and buying online are two different products. You have to remember what the product actually is, its NOT the music, its the convince.

People buy online want (mostly) the convince of cheep quick tracks, people who ORDER online want cheaper tracks but dont mind the wait but people in stores are paying for the convince of taking it home then and there in a high quality format.

besides if you moved to online only retail you would put a lot of good people out of a job in record stores, which no matter how you look at it is not a good thing.

kinematic
August 8th, 2007, 09:50 AM
i never said it should be online retail only.

jgrabham
August 8th, 2007, 09:23 PM
Remember your place.......your just a hybrid immigrant with no culture and a lack of manners and education of the real world.


Wait, are you talking about US or EU citizens now??????? I know the latter is truer imo, but still

dca
August 8th, 2007, 09:32 PM
Wait, are you talking about US or EU citizens now??????? I know the latter is truer imo, but still

Nah, he was directing it towards me...

jgrabham
August 8th, 2007, 09:33 PM
Nah, he was directing it towards me...

OK, cant help but see the irony there, at least you arent governed by a foreign state.


Must go, I sense im about to get flamed

Depressed Man
August 8th, 2007, 10:19 PM
Buying on disk and buying online are two different products. You have to remember what the product actually is, its NOT the music, its the convince.

People buy online want (mostly) the convince of cheep quick tracks, people who ORDER online want cheaper tracks but dont mind the wait but people in stores are paying for the convince of taking it home then and there in a high quality format.

besides if you moved to online only retail you would put a lot of good people out of a job in record stores, which no matter how you look at it is not a good thing.

True but isn't that just the way thing works with technology? As we industralize and advance we replaced jobs that had to be done by people with jobs that could be done by machines. It sucks, but that's how it's always been when it comes to human progress throughout civilization.

lepz
August 8th, 2007, 10:22 PM
OK, cant help but see the irony there, at least you arent governed by a foreign state.


Must go, I sense im about to get flamed

Your young, plus you come from my part of the world, so no flaming this time ;) but don't push it. :lolflag:

Irony? both the eu and US are run by Banks and Big Business.