If you don't like DRM and corporate scum...

[FG123]

... does this give justification for downloading pirated content from torrent sites?

I was reading some comments on another forum, talking about the recent Demonoid takedown. Virtually all of them effectively showed how addicted a lot of people are for downloading movies, tv shows, music, and software. Now, this concerns me for the simple fact that a lot of users HERE feel the same way - but we're unique since we're using a truly free OS (as in beer); if you came to Linux to escape closed-source and expensive software, why then do you turn around and download pirated media as well? Isn't that hypocritical?

I will confess; I download torrents, mainly TV shows. However, I'm not addicted to it and limit it as best as I can. I try to also find legal content to download if it's interesting, and there's a lot I can assure you. But, here's the point of the thread:

There are many people who hate DRM, hate the wars the corporations fight to secure dominance over a format at the expense of the consumer. A lot of people say, well, I won't buy this or that due to the DRM on it or the business practices of such and such corporation. But the same people will instead DOWNLOAD, from torrent sites, the same content they vowed not to touch. They figure this is their way of "fighting the man". Wouldn't it be more appropriate to boycott said content, rather than download it still? You're still enjoying the product made by the same company you despise, so you're still more or less justifying their actions because you want it.

Now yes, I am aware that pirated content isn't always illegal, depending on where you live, which is why I keep referring to it as pirated content rather than illegal content. On the other hand, my point still stands - you hate the company which makes the content, for whatever reason, but instead of going without, you choose to take the easy route and still access the content. Is that right?

Since I do it myself, I am a hypocrite. but I am trying to reduce my dependency on such material though, and get more and more of my content through legal means on my terms. Some of it's genuinely free, other stuff is purchased. If I don't like the terms, I don't buy it, and I don't download it either. That way I at least feel content in my decision making. I'm actively reducing my reliance on pirated content for my entertainment, but a lot of people don't want to.

So I wonder what other people think when it comes to pirated (specifically pirated, not Linux distros or anything) content on torrent sites - do you download a lot, or a little? Do you have any concerns about it? Do you try to justify the act using some elaborate convolution of logic to make you feel better? Most importantly - if the content is DRMed to hell in the legal avenue, do you still pirate it with the DRM stripped?

I know some people also like to "sample" content before going the legal way. I actually don't have a problem with this, this is where torrents can prove very useful. I'm doubtful the majority of pirated content is downloaded just for sampling though.

[a12ctic]

DRM is a joke, people will always be able to crack it and all they are doing is making it harder for the people that do buy content.

[SunnyRabbiera]

Its not piracy I support, its the sharing of information that I root for.
but the MPAA/ RIAA and DRM really make me root for the internet pirates

[FG123]

Absolutely right, DRM is useless and hinders only those who go the legit way. On the other hand, there are tollerable forms of DRM - DVDs for example. It was only after CSS was cracked that we could play DVDs in Linux, but it also means I have no problems with purchasing DVDs because the final product works very well in Linux. It's a DRM I'm prepared to accept, since it's not much trouble (for the most part).

There are instances where the DRM is Internet-bound however, which I don't accept and will never accept. I've seen enough examples of people purchasing content which was disabled later due to a change in the way the licenses were issued, rendering the purchased content useless. At least DVDs won't do that.

I am fearful of a world where virtually all content will be DRMed, and net-based too. That's unlikely to happen due to certain companies like Apple/Amazon investing in non-DRMed music, which is cool. But the movies companies are kinda slow.

[Dixon Bainbridge]

The term piracy is innaccurate and wrong.

Pirating is the act of copying copyrighted material and selling it for profit without adequate recompense to the copyright holder. This is illegal and wrong.

Pirating is not downloading a film off isohunt. I download films all the time to watch - i dont keep them, after I watch them I bin them. Who the hell is that hurting? If I like the film, I buy it. Same goes with music. Without the ability to freely access this media, I wouldn't be making the purchases I do.

Media companies are using consumers as scapegoats for their own stupidity and laziness. They should be going after the real pirates, not 14 year old nerds downloading the Matrix.

[FG123]

Pirating is not downloading a film off isohunt. I download films all the time to watch - i dont keep them, after I watch them I bin them. Who the hell is that hurting? If I like the film, I buy it. Same goes with music. Without the ability to freely access this media, I wouldn't be making the purchases I do.
Well, if you're downloading the films rather than going to the cinema or renting the DVDs, then you wouldn't have bothered with the legit avenue in the first place, hence no money goes towards the people who make the films. Sure, the corporate heads aren't going to starve anytime soon, but I bet the writers would be pissed you're watching the films they wrote without having spent a dollar towards their paychecks.

That's the funny thing about illegal torrents. Any disadvantages that do occur are not immediately obvious. The corporations will of course blow the stats entirely out of the water and say it's causing them a lot more harm than it does, which makes the true consequence difficult to determine. For me? I just want to follow the letter of the law as closely as possible. It will at least prevent me from being sued, which is probably my biggest motivator for getting only legit content, aye? :)

I should re-iterate my point though, I'm not talking about whether pirated content is right or not. My point is whether, if you don't like the terms of the legal version of the content, that this means it's OK to download the illegal version or not.

[aysiu]

Ever heard the expression "Why buy the cow when you can get the milk for free?"

It's kind of difficult to have an objective evaluation of whether you would have bought the music/movie anyway, considering you know you can get it for free.

[thx11381974]

Actually dvd's are getting so cheap I buy them sometime just out of convenience.
My official policy is intellectual property doesn't exist, So go head download away.

[FG123]

Actually dvd's are getting so cheap I buy them sometime just out of convenience.
My official policy is intellectual property doesn't exist, So go head download away.
I like DVDs because they have stuff regular DivX/XviD rips don't (normally) have - commentaries, extras, subtitles (although they can be found with the rips sometimes), and a generally higher visual/audio quality. There are full DVDs available for download of course, but I'm in Australia, and I have a 20 GB quota cap. I've got better things to use it for.

Intellectual property is something that only becomes important once you're a content developer out to make money on your product, so the idea that it doesn't "exist" tends to change when you're in the other guy's shoes. It's a legal construct anyway.

[Namtabmai]

For it all comes down to power to show your support, and with media as it is at the moment showing your support means taking out your wallet.
BUT something it's difficult doing this.
For music it's not that hard, you heard bands on the radio, they release free tracks etc, there's no excuse for downloading music. If you like them enough to listen to them you obviously appreciate them enough to buy their albums.
But with films I just don't know what to do. Reviews for films can be biased or misleading, the only way I can really be sure is by paying to see it, either £6 at the cinema or £15 for a DVD. And then if the film turns out to be complete crap can I really go back to the shop and ask for my money back? Not really, you can try asking for your money back at the cinema when you see a bad film but I don't think you'll get very far, and even if you do there are only so many times you could do this before they bar you from the place.
With software it's a little easier, most places have trial versions so you can try them out. Unfortunately some don't, such as Microsoft. I'd really like to try Vista for a few days to see what the fuss is about but I don't think I should have to fork out at least £60 on an OS I may not even like.

[thx11381974]

I like DVDs because they have stuff regular DivX/XviD rips don't (normally) have - commentaries, extras, subtitles (although they can be found with the rips sometimes), and a generally higher visual/audio quality. There are full DVDs available for download of course, but I'm in Australia, and I have a 20 GB quota cap. I've got better things to use it for.

Intellectual property is something that only becomes important once you're a content developer out to make money on your product, so the idea that it doesn't "exist" tends to change when you're in the other guy's shoes. It's a legal construct anyway.

How dose this quota thing work?

Here post that explains my opinion better.

http://ubuntuforums.org/showpost.php?p=3667125&postcount=19

http://ubuntuforums.org/showpost.php?p=3674065&postcount=22

[FG123]

For it all comes down to power to show your support, and with media as it is at the moment showing your support means taking out your wallet.
BUT something it's difficult doing this.
For music it's not that hard, you heard bands on the radio, they release free tracks etc, there's no excuse for downloading music. If you like them enough to listen to them you obviously appreciate them enough to buy their albums.
But with films I just don't know what to do. Reviews for films can be biased or misleading, the only way I can really be sure is by paying to see it, either £6 at the cinema or £15 for a DVD. And then if the film turns out to be complete crap can I really go back to the shop and ask for my money back? Not really, you can try asking for your money back at the cinema when you see a bad film but I don't think you'll get very far, and even if you do there are only so many times you could do this before they bar you from the place.
With software it's a little easier, most places have trial versions so you can try them out. Unfortunately some don't, such as Microsoft. I'd really like to try Vista for a few days to see what the fuss is about but I don't think I should have to fork out at least £60 on an OS I may not even like.
This is a good example of a balanced approach, particularly with regards to movies. Heck, there's been plenty of times I've watched a movie from a torrent site, or tv show for that matter, and liked it enough to go get the DVD version (often a box set with pretty packaging and all that jazz). It's good for working out if the legit version is worth spending money on later. I'm uncertain just how many people follow this approach though.

BTW, about Vista. I'd argue that if you obtained a copy, somehow, you'd actually be fine installing and running it for a few days without any problems. Even if you don't enter a serial key during installation, you're still allowed to run the OS for three days with full capability (even the Ultimate version). It's as if Microsoft predicted the piracy was going to be rampant, so they allowed a build-in trial function of the OS. :)

[aerotheexiled]

I just download music, but it's a lot. I do it because other forms of getting music are too expensive for me. I'd rather buy food or gas.

I don't see how I am doing damage to anyone. I'm not selling my hoard, and besides I wasn't going to buy it anyway.

[black_magician]

my problem with DRM is that it hurts the wrong people.

I used to have a friend who was movie ADDICT. Had like 2000 movies in his collection. All copied, burned, and ripped from origiinal copies. I used to get my movies from him by just borrowing them, so I never really downloaded movies much, unless it was something obscure. Then, I went and saw "grindhouse", the new tarantieno flick and I loved it to death. I said " I'm definately buying this when it comes out" so when it did finally come out on DVD, I bought it the first day. $20 bucks for "deathproof". I get home, pop it into my DVD player and.... "the DVD cannot be played" F**K! so I pop it into my Windows machine (it has my sound system and the big monitor) and.... still no luck.

I didn't have any decryting software on the machine(shows how much I use it), and I really wasn't in the mood to go find stuff to get it to work at this point. I just wanted to watch the f**king movie!! I paid for it! why can't I watch MY movie!! so I pop it into my Ubuntu laptop, and at this point its a new Gutsy install and I didn't have the decrypting libraries installed. so FINALLY, after installing the libraries it played. and I couldn't help but sit there and think "it would have been a lot easier if I had just downloaded it. this isn't worth 20 bucks"

so, what if I didn't know how to fix my problem? I'm glad I knew what was happening and knew how to fix it, but what if I didn't know how to satisfy the encryption? buy a new DVD player? f**k that.

so, Thank you DRM, you've lost yourselves another customer indefinitely. since I'm not buying another movie untill they're either unencrypted or free, I'm stuck borrowing from friends, downloading, or going to theaters(which actually, would be fine with me).

One more thing, who here thinks DRM actually works? I mean, CSS is cracked, Blu-Ray's BD+ is already cracked and just look at the iPhone jailbreaks.. I mean, seams like a waste of effort to me.

thank you. I'm done now.

[FG123]

How dose this quota thing work?
Depends on the ISP, but with mine it's fairly simple:

Your plan has a specific amount of quota attached to it, and you can pay more to get larger amounts of quota - I'm using 20 GB with mine. This quota lasts for the duration of each month, and gets reset near the beginning of the next month. If you use more than 20 GB in a month, you get slowed down to 64 Kb/s speeds, which is painful. :(

Then again, at least when you're slowed down you aren't charged any extra. Some ISPs will allow you to continue at the regular speed without slowing you down, but they charge a hefty amount per meg you go over, which is attached to your account after the month is over.

There are "unlimited" plans available, but these plans are generally so damn expensive they're pointless except for those who are ADDICTED to downloading, and make a heck of a lot of money. :) Remember - Australia is a 1st-world country, apparently, and yet it's everyone else who asks us what and how this funny-sounding "quota" system works here. :guitar:

[FG123]

I just download music, but it's a lot. I do it because other forms of getting music are too expensive for me. I'd rather buy food or gas.

I don't see how I am doing damage to anyone. I'm not selling my hoard, and besides I wasn't going to buy it anyway.
Well here-in lies the problem. Why do you deserve to get this content for free, and not compensate the artists?

As someone one said, what ever happened to going without?"

[thx11381974]

Australia is a 1st-world country, apparently, and yet it's everyone else who asks us what and how this funny-sounding "quota" system works here. :guitar:

My isp dose or at least did offer something like that. I have three broadband connections 1 at home, 1 at work, and a wireless. I still log into my neighbors wifi some times so as not screw up my xbox live. I don't know how you can get by on 20gb I can do that in a day.

[FG123]

I don't know how you can get by on 20gb I can do that in a day.
Put it this way - if someone don't know any better, they can never be disappointed. :)

Besides, the speed of my connection is such it's physically impossible for me to even hit 20GB in one day, quota notwithstanding, which is another problem we have in Australia.

Of course, downloading 20GB in a day would be pointless since I don't have enough time to watch that amount of content. :KS

[n3tfury]

I just download music, but it's a lot. I do it because other forms of getting music are too expensive for me. I'd rather buy food or gas.

I don't see how I am doing damage to anyone. I'm not selling my hoard, and besides I wasn't going to buy it anyway.

this is the dumbest thing i've read on this forum today.

[jcconnor]

I just download music, but it's a lot. I do it because other forms of getting music are too expensive for me. I'd rather buy food or gas.

I don't see how I am doing damage to anyone. I'm not selling my hoard, and besides I wasn't going to buy it anyway.

Well, you really are damaging someone.

You see, someone (an engineer) had to work the controls while the musicians were making their music. He's not a rich guy, probably makes about $40,000 a year or less (USD) and has a wife and small kid. Because you didn't pay for his labor, his company is going to have to make some cut-backs. He just lost his job.

Someone at the label writes the liner notes that come on the CD. She makes $45,000 a year, has a husband and 3 kids. Her husband is going back to school right now so she is the primary bread-winner in her family. Because you didn't pay for the album, her company is going through some rough times and she won't get that raise that she was counting on to replace the 6 year old minivan that needs a new engine.

It does hurt - you just don't care and have accepted your selfishness.

Now, as to the OP's question - the only time that I personally think it's ethical to torrent this stuff is if the vendor (music label, studio, etc.) has made it impossible for you to "fair use" (make backup copies for storage, time and place shift your viewing/listening, etc) material you have purchased. For example, a lot of TV sites won't work with Linux. Well, if I try to pay for the material and if I try to have their tech support work with me to make it available and they still refuse there's not much I can do about that. Otherwise, ethically and legally it is still stealing.

[23meg]

Well, you really are damaging someone.

You see, someone (an engineer) had to work the controls while the musicians were making their music. He's not a rich guy, probably makes about $40,000 a year or less (USD) and has a wife and small kid. Because you didn't pay for his labor, his company is going to have to make some cut-backs. He just lost his job.

Someone at the label writes the liner notes that come on the CD. She makes $45,000 a year, has a husband and 3 kids. Her husband is going back to school right now so she is the primary bread-winner in her family. Because you didn't pay for the album, her company is going through some rough times and she won't get that raise that she was counting on to replace the 6 year old minivan that needs a new engine.

That reminds me of a *cough* similar routine in the Christian Rock Hard episode of South Park. People who have watched it should be laughing out loud now.

The lion's share goes to the bosses, the stars and stuff that has nothing to do with music. If their bosses cared a little to actually compensate their workers for their work by sniffing a little less coke, hiring a few less limos and suites every week and doing a bit less crazy blown out six-figure promo, they could have been better off.

But no, the current system doesn't work for the little guy; it works for the big guy. And there are a lot of people out there who are motivated by the prospect of actually damaging the big guy.

[FG123]

If you want to damage the big guy, what's the better choice:

(a) Download the content for free
(b) Boycott the content entirely

With both cases no money goes to anyone, but at least with (b) you won't feel bad about taking the little guys who actually made the stuff for a free ride.

[23meg]

I doubt that most people who intend to damage the big guy actually feel bad about (a).

[FG123]

I doubt that most people who intend to damage the big guy actually feel bad about (a).
And THAT's why the argument of a free operating system doesn't seem to matter much to a lot of people - outside here of course. :)

If things are to change, the perception of pirated content would have to change first.

[23meg]

There's a difference between people's perceptions of it in cultural and technical products: in music and movies, people build connections primarily with the artists or entertainers, not the company. "True Blue" is a Madonna album, not a Warner Bros album. However, Windows is a Microsoft OS, and OSX is an Apple OS; there's no other connection.

People who want to hurt Warner Bros can still be Madonna fans, and want Madonna's music, and if they really want it, you can't stop them from having it. Few people who want to hurt Microsoft are Windows fans, however.

[tgbrowning]

My point is whether, if you don't like the terms of the legal version of the content, that this means it's OK to download the illegal version or not.

Hold up a moment here. The discussion is completely ignoring a very valid reason to object to DRM and copy protection: If I buy a DVD, I should have the right to play it and keep it as long as I wish -- I've paid for it. However, CDs and DVDs have been known to get scratched or damaged and thus become unusable. Why can I not make back up copies so that I can preserve my own, legal ability to view or listen to a purchased product? Hmmm?

That brings up another point that I feel is equally valid. Why can I not transfer the contents of a DVD to my computer hard disk and play it from there, any time I feel like it? Copy protection is designed to prevent that--that's it job. I don't agree that the company/artist/corporation has the legal right to prevent me from making such a copy.

Well, blow that for a lark.

Browning>>>

[FG123]

Hold up a moment here. The discussion is completely ignoring a very valid reason to object to DRM and copy protection: If I buy a DVD, I should have the right to play it and keep it as long as I wish -- I've paid for it. However, CDs and DVDs have been known to get scratched or damaged and thus become unusable. Why can I not make back up copies so that I can preserve my own, legal ability to view or listen to a purchased product? Hmmm?

That brings up another point that I feel is equally valid. Why can I not transfer the contents of a DVD to my computer hard disk and play it from there, any time I feel like it? Copy protection is designed to prevent that--that's it job. I don't agree that the company/artist/corporation has the legal right to prevent me from making such a copy.

Well, blow that for a lark.

Browning>>>
Point taken. I'd say enough time has passed though that the software for making backup copies of DVDs is pretty good, and it's only the really stubborn stuff with newer DRM that gets in the way. In fact, sometimes it's so bad it's impossible to even read the DVD in the first place, so you can't play it normally anyway. In such cases I'd just return the DVD - it's your right, the product is terminally defective.

It's morally wrong to be blocking you from making a copy (for your own personal use), but the law is on the producer's side in many countries, hence the crap we have to deal with. The only alternative is to not buy ANYTHING that has DRM, regardless of how tolerable it is - and I'm not sure how effective that is.

[jcconnor]

Hold up a moment here. The discussion is completely ignoring a very valid reason to object to DRM and copy protection: If I buy a DVD, I should have the right to play it and keep it as long as I wish -- I've paid for it. However, CDs and DVDs have been known to get scratched or damaged and thus become unusable. Why can I not make back up copies so that I can preserve my own, legal ability to view or listen to a purchased product? Hmmm?

That brings up another point that I feel is equally valid. Why can I not transfer the contents of a DVD to my computer hard disk and play it from there, any time I feel like it? Copy protection is designed to prevent that--that's it job. I don't agree that the company/artist/corporation has the legal right to prevent me from making such a copy.

Well, blow that for a lark.

Browning>>>

What you're talking about is called "fair use". In the '70's Sony (who wasn't a media conglomerate yet, just a hardware company) sued for the right to produce hardware (VCR) that would allow people to time shift television. At the same time, the courts decided (don't have the case off the top of my head - don't ask for a reference) that creating backups of albums onto a tape to allow for storage or for space shifting the album content (making a copy to play in your car) was legal.

In the US, the same Sony that sued and won a fair use case 20 years prior was part of a media consortium that argued and won the elimination of fair use (primarily for DVD content, but for all copy protected content as well) in the DMCA.

The examples you use are prime examples of why we need to get back to a real "fair use" clause or court case. Right now, if I buy an album on iTunes, rip it to a disk and re-rip it to my computer (to be able to place shift it to my MP3 player) I have bypassed a copy protection scheme and have committed an illegal act in the US.

Piracy is wrong - unethical and illegal - but in the zeal to stop piracy the consumer got screwed.

[inversekinetix]

Is this thread really appropriate for this forum?

In any case, the fact of the matter is piracy is a crime, in any way shape or form. Debating the 'rights' and 'wrongs' of the music industry and its business model is irrelevent. Illegal activity is illegall. All I see happening here is people trying to justify their picking of which laws to abide by. Gas prices are high now, does it make it ok to go and steal gas? syphon it off from another vehicle? You can't pick and choose the laws you abide by.

Piracy is illegal, its as simple as that.

[sloggerkhan]

Is this thread really appropriate for this forum?

In any case, the fact of the matter is piracy is a crime, in any way shape or form. Debating the 'rights' and 'wrongs' of the music industry and its business model is irrelevent. Illegal activity is illegall. All I see happening here is people trying to justify their picking of which laws to abide by. Gas prices are high now, does it make it ok to go and steal gas? syphon it off from another vehicle? You can't pick and choose the laws you abide by.

Piracy is illegal, its as simple as that.

You know what? It used to be illegal to have interracial marriages. It used to be illegal to have gay relationships. It used to be illegal to not be a Christian ( and possibly whatever other religion, depending where, and when). And it used to be legal to copy personally whatever the hell you liked, and even throw in notes or change it. (If things hadn't been that way, most books from before the printing press wouldn't exist. Can you imagine telling some monk "hey, you can't copy Copernicus' or Galileo's works because our monastery has license to the copyright? They were much smarted and said, "don't copy that because science that goes against the Church's teachings is Heresy.") Anybody who thinks law is the same as virtuous and right is missing out on history. Law is irrelevant to anything. It's just the rules those in power impose on society to maintain the prevailing status quo. And for the theoretical average individual, it usually pays to give them lip service. But seriously, we all pick what laws to abide by or not. If we kill the king's deer, we get tossed in jail, or maybe killed. Still doesn't mean it's right that all the deer are the king's, and it doesn't change the fact that most every god damned starving peasant with a bit of courage is gonna grab if they think they can do it without getting caught or punished to badly. (I don't mean to draw parallel between music and food here, but in some ways the mechanics are the same. As I had pointed out to me recently, it would take generally take more than $10,000 to fill a 30gb player legally, more than $20,000 for a 60, and so on. Clearly the market is out of whack. It's obvious economics that when artificial price floors and ceilings are put in place, black market develop. Same as with the deer. Same as with the damned music and video right now.) All in all, discussion of perceived wrong laws or rules should always be allowed in open society and open forums.

[ubuntu27]

Everything I want to say is explained here in detail. (http://www.demonbaby.com/blog/2007/10/when-pigs-fly-death-of-oink-birth-of.html)

I think almost everyone will agree on that article.

http://www.demonbaby.com/blog/2007/10/when-pigs-fly-death-of-oink-birth-of.html

[mridkash]

I bought a canon digital camera rather than sony because with sony's you HAVE TO use a memory stick, HAVE TO use unique sony usb cable.
Same goes with songs, I bought 2 songs, they were in wmv format with DRM. Now I can't play them on Ubuntu.

There has to be a standard.

WHY does every mobile phone manufacturer make unique chargers, cables etc when it isn't required.

[tgbrowning]

It's morally wrong to be blocking you from making a copy (for your own personal use), but the law is on the producer's side in many countries, hence the crap we have to deal with. The only alternative is to not buy ANYTHING that has DRM, regardless of how tolerable it is - and I'm not sure how effective that is.

I used to work as a free-lance shareware programmer and actually made a little money here and there on the side. But at the same time, I had people who used my own program (Asc2Com -- we're talking dark ages DOS here) to provide content to their own products and thus made money off of me, without paying the shareware fee. Not a hell of a lot I could do about it.

I'm basically saying that there is a spectrum of abuse and wrong-doing here. I have no answers as to what might remedy the situation so I try to live my life as honestly as I can and hang the rest in a back closet. Not much point in doing otherwise.

But the damn lawyers and large entertainment corporations are going after people like myself, who have made copies for their own personal use and that really bugs me. It's wrong -- it's using economic power to force people to adhere to morally wrong law.

So, I break the law, to some degree. I more or less keep my mouth shut and hope nobody decides to come after me for making an occasional backup copy of a dearly loved movie. Or for making hard disk copies of movies I might want to watch while I'm traveling and don't want to haul around CD/DVD cases with me.

In point of fact, more than once I've purchased multiple copies of the same movie because I've misplaced or damaged my original copy, so as far as I'm concerned, the big companies like Time-Warner really are in a position that they owe me -- it certainly isn't reasonable to expect a person to pay full price for a second copy of a movie.

[ On the other hand, let's be fair here. The large companies often overproduce individual movies/cds and are forced to dump copies as very nearly cost and occasionally, below cost simply for cash flow reasons. That's why you'll see places that are selling movies for five to ten bucks. At that point, it becomes moot whether or not to buy a second copy because you can get a good copy for essential nothing but time and effort.]

Browning>>>

[tgbrowning]

Is this thread really appropriate for this forum?

In any case, the fact of the matter is piracy is a crime, in any way shape or form. Debating the 'rights' and 'wrongs' of the music industry and its business model is irrelevent. Illegal activity is illegall. All I see happening here is people trying to justify their picking of which laws to abide by. Gas prices are high now, does it make it ok to go and steal gas? syphon it off from another vehicle? You can't pick and choose the laws you abide by.

Piracy is illegal, its as simple as that.

Every so often the laws change. What was illegal in 2007 may or may not be illegal in 2008. Does that make the essence of the action change in any sense other than a label?

ff morality has any meaning at all, then the morality of the situation is exactly the same, regardless of the change in the law.

Laws are nothing more than agreement between members of society and we have laws to prevent chaos. That does NOT make them sacred. If you fail to see that difference, I think you might want to do some serious thinking on just what you believe in, and why, because (and it's my opinion--mind) I think you have some basic inconsistencies in your world view.

Honestly, I'm not trying to flame you or start a fight. I simply find your argument to be ill-considered.

Browning>>>

[tgbrowning]

Let me add this. Some of the greatest literature ever written has been an examination of the dichotomy between moral and legal. Les Miserable by Victor Hugo is probably the best known.

Browning>>>

[n3tfury]

again, more meager justifying of downloading music without paying. perhaps some of you should look into the world of employment.

[tgbrowning]

again, more meager justifying of downloading music without paying. perhaps some of you should look into the world of employment.

Pardon me?

I'm deaf, buddy. I don't download any music. I don't download any movies. Period. I buy.

Period.

Browning>>>

[frup]

For it all comes down to power to show your support, and with media as it is at the moment showing your support means taking out your wallet.
BUT something it's difficult doing this.
For music it's not that hard, you heard bands on the radio, they release free tracks etc, there's no excuse for downloading music. If you like them enough to listen to them you obviously appreciate them enough to buy their albums.
But with films I just don't know what to do. Reviews for films can be biased or misleading, the only way I can really be sure is by paying to see it, either £6 at the cinema or £15 for a DVD. And then if the film turns out to be complete crap can I really go back to the shop and ask for my money back? Not really, you can try asking for your money back at the cinema when you see a bad film but I don't think you'll get very far, and even if you do there are only so many times you could do this before they bar you from the place.
With software it's a little easier, most places have trial versions so you can try them out. Unfortunately some don't, such as Microsoft. I'd really like to try Vista for a few days to see what the fuss is about but I don't think I should have to fork out at least £60 on an OS I may not even like.


I would go the other way, downloading music is fine because the artists already only get paid from concerts and why should I pay the fat middle man who acts as a parasite of others creativity?

On the other hand a movie can cost millions to produce, do I think it should? no... Do the people in the industry get paid to much? Probably. 90% of films are useless anyway. On average I see about 5 films per year, I like around 1 of them usually... I do not download films at all (mainly because I don't have enough bandwidth) I own around 12 DVDs which are my very favourite movies of all time. The only time I will watch movies is on TV, again most of the time they aren't worth the 2 hours or so.

[cyclefiend2000]

Actually dvd's are getting so cheap I buy them sometime just out of convenience.
My official policy is intellectual property doesn't exist, So go head download away.

i work for a very small company and the cornerstone of our business relies on the fact that intellectual property does exist. otherwise people could steal our work and market it as their own.

i have a feeling that most engineers, architects, land surveyors and the like would have very different ideas about intellectual property than you.

[FG123]

i work for a very small company and the cornerstone of our business relies on the fact that intellectual property does exist. otherwise people could steal our work and market it as their own.

i have a feeling that most engineers, architects, land surveyors and the like would have very different ideas about intellectual property than you.
Like I said, once you start making money off your ideas and your content, your own opinion about piracy changes dramatically.

[thx11381974]

i work for a very small company and the cornerstone of our business relies on the fact that intellectual property does exist. otherwise people could steal our work and market it as their own.

i have a feeling that most engineers, architects, land surveyors and the like would have very different ideas about intellectual property than you.

I don't know if you saw these links so I'll repost them. They explain my opinion clearer.

http://ubuntuforums.org/showpost.php?p=3667125&postcount=19

http://ubuntuforums.org/showpost.php?p=3674065&postcount=22

If your business can't operate under this context, I'm sorry for you but I think making the whole world criminals in order to protect your livelihood just isn't worth it.

[popch]

I believe copyright is immoral the idea that just because you thought of something you own it, to me at least is disgusting.

There must be some kind of misunderstanding here.

No one has the slightest issue about things 'thought of'. Especially, any discussion about copying thoughts would require some fancy technology I would like to hear about.

What is being discussed is the work required to produce the work 'being thought of'.

Something you just thought of is not a 'work' and can not be protected by copyright. It does not exist.

Something which can take hours, months or even years of someone's personal worktime is a relevant piece of work, and copyright protection is intended to protect the people who have engaged in such work.

[Rupertronco]

again, more meager justifying of downloading music without paying. perhaps some of you should look into the world of employment.

You've got a 1:1 poor assumption to sentence ratio in that post, impressive. People who download free music are unemployed.

I don't download music unless I pay for it.The thought of a hefty fine and possibly land you in prison instead of paying $12 or less for a cd has a pretty awful cost/benefit analysis. DRM is not infringing on your civil liberties, it's just a nuisance, if you want to do something about it, purchase your music from somewhere that is DRM free.

There are plenty of things in this world getting irate about, and worth debating and fighting over, DRM doesn't strike me as one of them, there are bigger fish to fry.

Comparing copyright infringement to other absurd illegalities such as laws against interracial marriage has some serious flaws in logic. I like a good debate as much as the next person, but I think for the most part the analogies and references in this thread are absolutely ridiculous. The music industry is a business, they're doing what any good business does, they're protecting their assets. I'll have to keep in mind that there is most likely a great variance in the political views of this forum's posters, and that would certainly put a spin on your interpretation of this.

[Dixon Bainbridge]

This is a good example of a balanced approach, particularly with regards to movies. Heck, there's been plenty of times I've watched a movie from a torrent site, or tv show for that matter, and liked it enough to go get the DVD version (often a box set with pretty packaging and all that jazz). It's good for working out if the legit version is worth spending money on later. I'm uncertain just how many people follow this approach though.


The real issue here is methods of consumption.

Technology has already outrun the current distribution methods, ie mass digital storage and networking effectively render DVD mediums and packaging irrelevant. You don't need to physically own the media now. The problem is, the entertainment industry is locked into the DVD/CD delivery medium cycle. Most of the cost of a DVD is the sales taxes, marketing, packaging etc. You can remove alot of those costs by streaming the film off the internet.

If everyone had unlimited instant accesses to any media they wanted when they wanted, there would be no piracy. Its a very simple business model idea, but requires a one off massive infrastructure investment. This idea that we have to actually own something tangible is out dated now. As long as something we want is accessible, we dont' need to own it. Which one of the underlying reasons why people torrent files so much. Consumerism however, has always been based on ownership. So that paradigm needs to change as well. We have been brainwashed into thinking that if we shell money out for something, we have to have something tangible to own.

And this is what I see is the underlying issue surrounding the whole of the DRM, control, protection, piracy arguments - perceived ownerships of "properties".

[FG123]

The real issue here is methods of consumption.

Technology has already outrun the current distribution methods, ie mass digital storage and networking effectively render DVD mediums and packaging irrelevant. You don't need to physically own the media now. The problem is, the entertainment industry is locked into the DVD/CD delivery medium cycle. Most of the cost of a DVD is the sales taxes, marketing, packaging etc. You can remove alot of those costs by streaming the film off the internet.

If everyone had unlimited instant accesses to any media they wanted when they wanted, there would be no piracy. Its a very simple business model idea, but requires a one off massive infrastructure investment. This idea that we have to actually own something tangible is out dated now. As long as something we want is accessible, we dont' need to own it. Which one of the underlying reasons why people torrent files so much. Consumerism however, has always been based on ownership. So that paradigm needs to change as well. We have been brainwashed into thinking that if we shell money out for something, we have to have something tangible to own.

And this is what I see is the underlying issue surrounding the whole of the DRM, control, protection, piracy arguments - perceived ownerships of "properties".
Have you ever used Steam in Windows? If you have, I'm guessing you like it, since it's right up your alley. :)

There will always be a desire for tangible, physical property. I certainly hope the kids of the future don't grow up not knowing the pleasure of a good book in one's hands, the feel of it, the smell, etc, when all they know is an e-book.

[Dixon Bainbridge]

Have you ever used Steam in Windows? If you have, I'm guessing you like it, since it's right up your alley. :)

I'm not advocating a particular client, nor am I expressing a preference. I don't know what the ideal method of delivery should be specifically, just that it should be ON all the time.


There will always be a desire for tangible, physical property. I certainly hope the kids of the future don't grow up not knowing the pleasure of a good book in one's hands, the feel of it, the smell, etc, when all they know is an e-book.

That's nostalgia and has no basis in practicality. I like the feel of a good book, but the resources needed to produce that book are ridiculous. I have in my house nearly 2,000 books. Thats alot of shelf space. It looks nice, but its not practical. A few choice volumes and the rest on a small digital viewer would suffice.

The desire to own something is artificial and has been fostered by capitalism. That dynamic is now changing as technology changes. Both producers of media, and the those that consume it need to look at what their relationship to that media actually is.

[thx11381974]

Information can not be owned, copyright attempts to make information a physical thing like a chair or an automobile. Treating knowledge in this way is counter to human nature, which is why it's ignored by just about everyone.As the music/move industries can't convince people to treat an intangible thing like an idea like it were a chair, they've created DRM in the hope of convincing our computers that ideas physically exist. The problem with this is it attempts to give someone other than the computer's user control of a computers function. Circumventing DRM restores the proper interaction between human and computer, placing the unDRMed information on bittorent serves the natural human need to freely share information.
I support both, further more don't care what happens to the industries that use copyright to make money.
They are oppressors thier destruction is our liberation.

[FG123]

That's nostalgia and has no basis in practicality. I like the feel of a good book, but the resources needed to produce that book are ridiculous. I have in my house nearly 2,000 books. Thats alot of shelf space. It looks nice, but its not practical. A few choice volumes and the rest on a small digital viewer would suffice.
Perfectly understandable. There's no way I'll even want a huge ton of physical books, would make moving all the time a pain. :)

I just don't want a future which is entirely electronic. That would be stale, but that's the way we're going to be headed if all the media is entirely transmitted online. I'd like some stuff at least to be physical: it's part of feeling human, at least for a moderate capitalist like myself. It's like the arts - we don't need paintings, they don't serve much practical purpose. They do make the world a slightly nicer and richer place though.

[ethmoid]

Interesting

[n3tfury]

Pardon me?

I'm deaf, buddy. I don't download any music. I don't download any movies. Period. I buy.

Period.

Browning>>>

if i was directing my post at you, i would have quoted you.

[n3tfury]

You've got a 1:1 poor assumption to sentence ratio in that post, impressive. People who download free music are unemployed.

I don't download music unless I pay for it.The thought of a hefty fine and possibly land you in prison instead of paying $12 or less for a cd has a pretty awful cost/benefit analysis. DRM is not infringing on your civil liberties, it's just a nuisance, if you want to do something about it, purchase your music from somewhere that is DRM free.

There are plenty of things in this world getting irate about, and worth debating and fighting over, DRM doesn't strike me as one of them, there are bigger fish to fry.

Comparing copyright infringement to other absurd illegalities such as laws against interracial marriage has some serious flaws in logic. I like a good debate as much as the next person, but I think for the most part the analogies and references in this thread are absolutely ridiculous. The music industry is a business, they're doing what any good business does, they're protecting their assets. I'll have to keep in mind that there is most likely a great variance in the political views of this forum's posters, and that would certainly put a spin on your interpretation of this.

"free" music? lol, just because you CAN download it doesn't make IT free. aLOT of the arguments i've seen in the past few years show downloaders "can't afford" the album or "they're not working right now because of school". i'll stick to my statement thanks.

i agree with the rest of your post though, but then again, that wasn't directed at me.

[23meg]

aLOT of the arguments i've seen in the past few years show downloaders "can't afford" the album or "they're not working right now because of school".

A lot, but not all, right? You probably heard from people who are perfectly capable of buying music in whatever form, but refuse to do so, due to DRM, label policies and other reasons, did you not? If you didn't, let me inform you that they exist, in large and growing numbers.

Just because you can download it doesn't make it free, but just because you can buy it doesn't make it fair and acceptable under all conditions either.

[n3tfury]

of course not all. nowhere did i say all, thanks. also, i'm not sticking up for DRM in the least bit, but it's certainly there because of all the idiot piracy going on. if you don't like DRM, get your media legally in another format if available or blame your neighbor.

[23meg]

My point is that your "get a job" attitude isn't addressing people's refusal to feed a corrupt industry in any case, and that acts of civil disobedience don't need "justification".

[n3tfury]

i'm merely pointing out what i've seen come up in the countless discussions i've either been a part of of have read regarding downloading illegaly. but really, it's one of many excuses people will use to help them sleep at night.

DRM's a bitch, get used to it.

[cyclefiend2000]

I don't know if you saw these links so I'll repost them. They explain my opinion clearer.

http://ubuntuforums.org/showpost.php?p=3667125&postcount=19

http://ubuntuforums.org/showpost.php?p=3674065&postcount=22

If your business can't operate under this context, I'm sorry for you but I think making the whole world criminals in order to protect your livelihood just isn't worth it.

double talk to justify illegal downloading?

you say you dont believe that intellectual property exists. however, in one of those posts you concede that an artist can control commercial use of their work. their work=intellectual property.

i worked for an architect for many years. we designed commercial buildings mainly. each idea, once put to paper belonged to us. otherwise, anybody could have copied our ideas and called them their own. this is very similar to plagiarism. i cant copy war and peace word for word and re-title it and call it my own. it isnt. i didnt come up with the original idea.

the example of a house wife singing a song doesnt apply to the type of work i do. now i work for a land surveyor. almost all (99%) of our work is public record. you or anyone else can go to the courthouse and get a copy of it. however, you cant take our name off of it and put your's on and call it your's. it isnt.

i dont seek to make anyone a criminal other than the people who steal.

[K.Mandla]

Henry David Thoreau said if no one owned anything, there would be no theft.

Take from that what you will, but when I stopped using Windows I stopped stealing Photoshop, Illustrator and Acrobat. And when I started surfing Jamendo (http://www.jamendo.com) for music I stopped stealing it from Limewire.

I don't buy any rationalization for illicit downloads any longer, because when you realize there are better options that are free, theft becomes an amazingly stupid idea ... regardless of your justifications.

By the way, if Henry David were alive today, he would be using Arch Linux. :biggrin:

[Dixon Bainbridge]

Henry David Thoreau said if no one owned anything, there would be no theft.

Take from that what you will, but when I stopped using Windows I stopped stealing Photoshop, Illustrator and Acrobat. And when I started surfing Jamendo (http://www.jamendo.com) for music I stopped stealing it from Limewire.

I don't buy any rationalization for illicit downloads any longer, because when you realize there are better options that are free, theft becomes an amazingly stupid idea ... regardless of your justifications.

By the way, if Henry David were alive today, he would be using Arch Linux. :biggrin:


Thoreau was a cool bloke, and his works are still relevant today. The only problem is, we live in a society where money talks. Nothing else matters. The pursuit of its acquisition, by any means, makes pirates of us all. Artists get screwed by record companies, record companies look to screw consumers, consumers copy and redistribute, record companies cry foul, the money sloshes around and the vultures circle looking to pick up all they can. You can bet your bottom dollar that no artists will be recompensed a single penny by record companies pursuing piracy claims against individuals. THat will go straight to the share holders.

There are crooks everywhere. Some are 40 and wear suits, some are 14 and go to school. It all comes down to who shouts the loudest. At the end of the day, the economic system we live in makes crooks out of us all. Who's right, who's wrong? Whoever has the best lawyer.

[tgbrowning]

I don't know if you saw these links so I'll repost them. They explain my opinion clearer.

http://ubuntuforums.org/showpost.php?p=3667125&postcount=19

http://ubuntuforums.org/showpost.php?p=3674065&postcount=22



I see your point and am not really all that far away from you in my beliefs. What do you figure should be the case regarding non-proformance arts, such as writing and art work such as painting, sculpture and the like?

Really, what you find repellent isn't traditional copyright law, as it used to be. Your distaste, it seems to me, is really with patent law and in that, I sympathize with your belief but think it's not entirely thought out. Patent law is, primarily, supposed to encourage innovation by giving exclusive use of something for a fixed period of time. US patent law right now is terribly out of wack, however, because patents are being issued unwisely and the entire concept is getting screwed because of it. I blame the advent of computers and software for this, because it blurred the lines between copyrighted material and patentable "ideas". [ and trademarks? hmmmm?]

That brings us to the topic of user agreements between software companies and users as well, which is where we kind of come full circle -- most people who use Linux in any distro do so at least partially due to a distaste for companies like Apple and Microsoft.

Browning>>>

[tgbrowning]

Hold up there a minute -- the "comparison" was NOT between copyright infringement and slavery. The actual comparison was between morality and legality, a HUGE difference and legitimate, in my mind. Keep things straight, please.

Browning>>>

[igknighted]

Now, as to the OP's question - the only time that I personally think it's ethical to torrent this stuff is if the vendor (music label, studio, etc.) has made it impossible for you to "fair use" (make backup copies for storage, time and place shift your viewing/listening, etc) material you have purchased. For example, a lot of TV sites won't work with Linux. Well, if I try to pay for the material and if I try to have their tech support work with me to make it available and they still refuse there's not much I can do about that. Otherwise, ethically and legally it is still stealing.

+1, I agree with this completely

[tgbrowning]

Henry David Thoreau said if no one owned anything, there would be no theft.

By the way, if Henry David were alive today, he would be using Arch Linux. :biggrin:

I really wish you'd quit quoting Thoreau -- he was a jerk :)

Especially that first quote. Think about it. That's tautology -- by DEFINITION ALONE there would be no theft. That's like saying if there were no laws, there would be nothing illegal.

Browning>>>

[igknighted]

Hold up a moment here. The discussion is completely ignoring a very valid reason to object to DRM and copy protection: If I buy a DVD, I should have the right to play it and keep it as long as I wish -- I've paid for it. However, CDs and DVDs have been known to get scratched or damaged and thus become unusable. Why can I not make back up copies so that I can preserve my own, legal ability to view or listen to a purchased product? Hmmm?

That brings up another point that I feel is equally valid. Why can I not transfer the contents of a DVD to my computer hard disk and play it from there, any time I feel like it? Copy protection is designed to prevent that--that's it job. I don't agree that the company/artist/corporation has the legal right to prevent me from making such a copy.

Well, blow that for a lark.

Browning>>>

No. You do NOT own it. You own a LICENSE to USE it. Huge difference. By purchasing the product you are agreeing to use the product in the terms laid out in the license. If the license says you cannot do certain things, even though from a technological standpoint they could be done, then you still may not. I mean, from a technological standpoint, I physically can go shoot anyone I want, but that doesn't make it legal (yes, this is hyperbole to make a point).

The simple fact is that you agreed with the terms when you purchased the DVD. If you don't want to agree to those terms, call up the company and ask to purchase it under different terms. Or purchase movies from studios that license under the terms you want. But copy protection or not, if the license which you purchased (note license, you did not purchase the song or movie itself) says you cannot make copies, then you cannot make copies. So in reality, DRM does not restrict your rights, the license does.

DRM just enforces the license like a bouncer throwing people out of a nightclub for breaking their rules. It does you no good to fight the bouncer, even if you manage to find a way to slip in the club, (a) you are breaking rules, and (b) the system is still broken. So support clubs with rules you accept and agree to, and work to change the rules at clubs that have rules you disagree with. But you can't expect to keep breaking the rules without the bouncer throwing you out (or trying to).

[Ocxic]

i download movies and tv shows,, my logic is that if I can push the record button on my VCR to record the movie/show,,, then downloading it is no different

movies that are in theaters and such are different thats piracy



The simple fact is that you agreed with the terms when you purchased the DVD. If you don't want to agree to those terms, call up the company and ask to purchase it under different terms. Or purchase movies from studios that license under the terms you want. But copy protection or not, if the license which you purchased (note license, you did not purchase the song or movie itself) says you cannot make copies, then you cannot make copies. So in reality, DRM does not restrict your rights, the license does.

thats funny,, i have never seen nor agreed to any such licenses when I buy movies, or cd off the shelf in stores

[Dixon Bainbridge]

Karl Marx stated that capitalism will manufacture the tools of its own destruction. That's basically whats happening with filesharing and DRM. A problem is created through corporate dynamics and consumer acquisition (ie, cheap access to sophisticated technology), consumer makes copies of purchased materials and redistributes, corporations seek to impose restrictions on the use of technology they were only to happy to supply to consumers in the first place.

Its like sellig guns to a maniac. One day he's gonna return to the shop and blow your head off.

[Erdaron]

Admittedly, I used to download a lot of music when I was in college. My excuse back then was that since I couldn't afford much music, I wasn't really part of the market, therefore not hurting the musicians. My intentions was that once I am better off financially, I'll start buying music. I'm in grad school, and only slightly less poor, but I've expanded my catalog of CDs by a lot (and some of it chosen based on music I downloaded).

My beef with current DRM practices is that they raise prices (since DRM is a technology, and someone has to get paid for its implementation), while providing no real security to either the customer or the music company. In some cases, it actually does harm to the consumer (the Sony root kit fiasco, for example). So I end up having to pay more, for a product that's less useful and less enjoyable.

It seems to me that vast numbers of people affected by DRM are regular, law-abiding people, while actual content pirates feel no sting. And given the industry's stance, their answer will probably be to keep tightening DRM. Which is nonsense, of course, because all video and audio content is, at some point in the delivery, is put into analog, non-encoded format, which is 100% stealable.

If they dropped DRM, they'd probably be able to significantly reduce prices, which will undercut piracy.

In short, I also find it agreeable to "hack" digital content if it is unfairly packaged in its original presentation, but outright stealing content is not cool. Then again, neither is it cool for a production company to attempt to take over your hardware to make sure you are not doing anything wrong.

[aysiu]

To all those people who think they're bucking the system by pirating commercial music (since, supposedly most of the money goes to greedy middlemen and not the "artists"), just keep in mind that Bill Gates once said he'd rather, if China is going to pirate software, that they pirate Windows than use something else; he would find a way to make them pay for it later.

The best way to buck the system is to support and promote music you think is quality music and business models that you think are quality business models.

If you think Britney Spears is crap, don't download her music (for "free" or otherwise). Go to eMusic, Jamendo, or Magnatune. Support local independent bands and pay for the support.

Pirating commercial music doesn't make you a rebel. It just promotes the mainstream even more.

This "I wouldn't have bought it anyway" line is a load of bunk, and you all know it. That's like people pirating and using Windows and then saying, "Yeah, I wouldn't have paid for it anyway" or a drug addict saying, "Yeah, I can stop any time." If you can really live without it, live without it. If you can't, then pay for it.

[Dixon Bainbridge]

The most amusing thing is, DRM is relatively easy to bypass. So its kind of pointless. I guess it represents a stance more than a practicality

[aysiu]

Well, since iTunes and Amazon have just recently started releasing DRM-free downloads, I think it's a sign the music industry is finally realizing how useless DRM is in preventing piracy.

Those who want to pirate will pirate. Those who want to pay will pay. Sometimes people do a mix of both (pirate some, pay some).

[thx11381974]

double talk to justify illegal downloading?

you say you dont believe that intellectual property exists. however, in one of those posts you concede that an artist can control commercial use of their work. their work=intellectual property.

i worked for an architect for many years. we designed commercial buildings mainly. each idea, once put to paper belonged to us. otherwise, anybody could have copied our ideas and called them their own. this is very similar to plagiarism. i cant copy war and peace word for word and re-title it and call it my own. it isnt. i didnt come up with the original idea.

the example of a house wife singing a song doesnt apply to the type of work i do. now i work for a land surveyor. almost all (99%) of our work is public record. you or anyone else can go to the courthouse and get a copy of it. however, you cant take our name off of it and put your's on and call it your's. it isnt.

i dont seek to make anyone a criminal other than the people who steal.

I don't concede anything I'm just willing to make a deal with the devil if it keeps my Mom out of court.
All of your examples deal with commercial uses of copyright. If someone takes your survey puts their name on it and tries to sell it as something they originated. I'm fine with you suing them, If I'm on the jury you'll win the case. If business wants to pretend an idea is a chair, I can live with that even though I don't agree with it. When business tries to impose copyright on the general public is where I'm not willing to compromise.

[popch]

[quote=thx11381974;3764111 If business wants to pretend an idea is a chair, I can live with that even though I don't agree with it.[/quote]

Am I right in assuming that you think chairs can be property, then?

Why do you think so? Wood is freely available in forests. Anyone with serviceable tools can fashion a chair out of wood a perhaps a bit of glue, and the design of the chair is after all only an idea.

What, then, is the difference between a chair and a book which might have taken years of labour to write?

[cyclefiend2000]

I don't concede anything I'm just willing to make a deal with the devil if it keeps my Mom out of court.
All of your examples deal with commercial uses of copyright. If someone takes your survey puts their name on it and tries to sell it as something they originated. I'm fine with you suing them, If I'm on the jury you'll win the case. If business wants to pretend an idea is a chair, I can live with that even though I don't agree with it. When business tries to impose copyright on the general public is where I'm not willing to compromise.
too many people seek to villanize businesses for trying to earn money.

[thx11381974]

Well, since iTunes and Amazon have just recently started releasing DRM-free downloads, I think it's a sign the music industry is finally realizing how useless DRM is in preventing piracy.

Those who want to pirate will pirate. Those who want to pay will pay. Sometimes people do a mix of both (pirate some, pay some).

That's me if price is right and its convenient I'll buy. DRM is totally inconvenient I didn't adopt dvd's until DRM could be circumvented. I won't adopt HD DVD or Blueray until I can copy them. Truthfully the #1 reason I'm using Kubuntu is I see vista as crippled by DRM.

[thx11381974]

Am I right in assuming that you think chairs can be property, then?

Why do you think so? Wood is freely available in forests. Anyone with serviceable tools can fashion a chair out of wood a perhaps a bit of glue, and the design of the chair is after all only an idea.

What, then, is the difference between a chair and a book which might have taken years of labour to write?


Wood workers often copy each others works. If you copy my chair when your done you have invested as much work as I have. A book too is a physical item, But the information contained inside it is not. Whether You spend years forming the ideas in a book or not once you put them out into the world they don't belong to you anymore. Ideas like children take on a life of their own & can not be controlled by their parents.

[igknighted]

Wood workers often copy each others works. If you copy my chair when your done you have invested as much work as I have. A book too is a physical item, But the information contained inside it is not. Whether You spend years forming the ideas in a book or not once you put them out into the world they don't belong to you anymore. Ideas like children take on a life of their own & can not be controlled by their parents.

Woah, huge difference though... the wood workers are imitating, not copying. The designs, while similar and clearly inspired by the original, are not identical. If you were to re-record a commercial song, in your own interpretation, and sell it then it would be the same thing (and as far as I know, perfectly legal). But you can't make an identical copy. Same with the wood workers making chairs.

[aysiu]

People who copyright books are not copyrighting ideas. They are copyrighting the form those ideas take.

If I write a book very similar in plot, structure, and characters to The Great Gatsby and call it my own, I'm legally entitled to do so. If, however, I just take the exact words F. Scott Fitzgerald wrote, call it The Great Swigsby and then say I wrote it, that doesn't fly legally.

From the Copyright FAQ (http://www.copyright.gov/help/faq/faq-general.html#patent):
How is a copyright different from a patent or a trademark?
Copyright protects original works of authorship, while a patent protects inventions or discoveries. Ideas and discoveries are not protected by the copyright law, although the way in which they are expressed may be. A trademark protects words, phrases, symbols, or designs identifying the source of the goods or services of one party and distinguishing them from those of others.

[thx11381974]

If you were to re-record a commercial song, in your own interpretation, and sell it then it would be the same thing (and as far as I know, perfectly legal).

The RIAA will sue you and wil win.

[thx11381974]

People who copyright books are not copyrighting ideas. They are copyrighting the form those ideas take.

If I write a book very similar in plot, structure, and characters to The Great Gatsby and call it my own, I'm legally entitled to do so. If, however, I just take the exact words F. Scott Fitzgerald wrote, call it The Great Swigsby and then say I wrote it, that doesn't fly legally.

From the Copyright FAQ (http://www.copyright.gov/help/faq/faq-general.html#patent):

If try and sell "The Great Swigsby" I think they should be able to go after you, but if your just giving it away to people so they'll think your a great author. I think your just a plagiarizing azz hole.

[igknighted]

The RIAA will sue you and wil win.

No, there are lots of CDs like this available. Think about a capela versions, string arrangements, and even people like weird al who didn't need permission to remake songs (although he did out of courtesy usually iirc). It can't be "the same", but if its an interpretation of the original while borrowing bit and pieces and themes, it's no different from the chair makers, and totally legal (and done all the time).

[tgbrowning]

No. You do NOT own it. You own a LICENSE to USE it. Huge difference. By purchasing the product you are agreeing to use the product in the terms laid out in the license. If the license says you cannot do certain things, even though from a technological standpoint they could be done, then you still may not. I mean, from a technological standpoint, I physically can go shoot anyone I want, but that doesn't make it legal (yes, this is hyperbole to make a point).

The simple fact is that you agreed with the terms when you purchased the DVD. If you don't want to agree to those terms, call up the company and ask to purchase it under different terms. Or purchase movies from studios that license under the terms you want. But copy protection or not, if the license which you purchased (note license, you did not purchase the song or movie itself) says you cannot make copies, then you cannot make copies. So in reality, DRM does not restrict your rights, the license does.

DRM just enforces the license like a bouncer throwing people out of a nightclub for breaking their rules. It does you no good to fight the bouncer, even if you manage to find a way to slip in the club, (a) you are breaking rules, and (b) the system is still broken. So support clubs with rules you accept and agree to, and work to change the rules at clubs that have rules you disagree with. But you can't expect to keep breaking the rules without the bouncer throwing you out (or trying to).

And that's the crux of the discussion, is it not? The law is clear on that and I disagree totally with the law. I've never argued that what I wanted to do was legal. It is moral, however, because forced agreement in a contract does NOT confer a flag of moral correctness.

Make no mistake about it. I own what I've purchased, regardless of the agreement. And the courts have, many, many times, come out and said that a particular contract was an illegal contract, often because it was forced upon a person.

Theory aside, I ask you this. If I concern myself with who I AM harming, who I might be depriving of monies because of my action, AND avoid doing so, what's the real problem then? I don't download music. I don't download programs, except shareware and free ones. I don't download movies. In my lights, I'm following the essence of the law -- the point of it.

Do you really condemn me for that?

If you do, then I'm afraid your view of morality and mine are simply too far apart for any further discussion. We won't agree. And I'm well aware that this particular viewpoint is shared by many in society. I tend to think it's a lawyer's view of the world which does NOT recommend it as far as I'm concerned. Quite a lot of the trouble we face in society today is due to more concern with legality than ethics. In point of fact, I honestly believe it's the root cause of quite a lot of society's ills.

Browning>>>

[igknighted]

And that's the crux of the discussion, is it not? The law is clear on that and I disagree totally with the law. I've never argued that what I wanted to do was legal. It is moral, however, because forced agreement in a contract does NOT confer a flag of moral correctness.

Make no mistake about it. I own what I've purchased, regardless of the agreement. And the courts have, many, many times, come out and said that a particular contract was an illegal contract, often because it was forced upon a person.

Theory aside, I ask you this. If I concern myself with who I AM harming, who I might be depriving of monies because of my action, AND avoid doing so, what's the real problem then? I don't download music. I don't download programs, except shareware and free ones. I don't download movies. In my lights, I'm following the essence of the law -- the point of it.

Do you really condemn me for that?

If you do, then I'm afraid your view of morality and mine are simply too far apart for any further discussion. We won't agree. And I'm well aware that this particular viewpoint is shared by many in society. I tend to think it's a lawyer's view of the world which does NOT recommend it as far as I'm concerned. Quite a lot of the trouble we face in society today is due to more concern with legality than ethics. In point of fact, I honestly believe it's the root cause of quite a lot of society's ills.

Browning>>>

It's not just about "who am I harming", it is about "what do I have the right to have/use". Why should it be ok for you to download a CD and not me? And if its ok for you and me both, why should anyone pay for music? And if no one pays for music, how are artists, recording studios, etc. making money?

So your downloading music might not harm anyone per se, but it gives you special rights if you can get for free what other pay for, and if everyone were to have those rights, then there is certainly harm being done.

Also, there is nothing forced about that license. The product is simply offered like that, and you have every right in the world to either accept it or decline it. The artist willingly signed with a label that uses these practices, giving consent for such restrictions to be put on their music. And you the consumer support it buy buying from companies and artists who support this. Don't like it? Support artists and companies who choose not to support this restricted business model. But it is by no means forced upon you, rather you are choosing to participate with your purchase.

[tgbrowning]

And another point to consider -- that I've been meaning to bring up.

Can we say root-kits?

Can we say sneaking spyware and virii into computers via DVDs and CD? Can we say Sony?

According to your logic, Sony was not only justified but morally correct and fully within it's rights to do as it did. Do you actually feel that way?

Browning>>>

[igknighted]

And another point to consider -- that I've been meaning to bring up.

Can we say root-kits?

Can we say sneaking spyware and virii into computers via DVDs and CD? Can we say Sony?

According to your logic, Sony was not only justified but morally correct and fully within it's rights to do as it did. Do you actually feel that way?

Browning>>>

Look, I agree with you 100% that it is all morally wrong what these companies do. But I think that pirating their products isn't helping the situation at all. Look at the MS situation in China that Aysiu referenced. And just think in general about the credibility a 20 year old has trying to argue about his rights to a product that since he couldn't have he stole... it doesn't fly. Do the right things, support music that doesn't come with these restrictions... trust me, it's just as good... and fight the system the right way.

[thx11381974]

No, there are lots of CDs like this available. Think about a capela versions, string arrangements, and even people like weird al who didn't need permission to remake songs (although he did out of courtesy usually iirc). It can't be "the same", but if its an interpretation of the original while borrowing bit and pieces and themes, it's no different from the chair makers, and totally legal (and done all the time).

They pay the RIAA

[cyclefiend2000]

If you were to re-record a commercial song, in your own interpretation, and sell it then it would be the same thing (and as far as I know, perfectly legal). But you can't make an identical copy. Same with the wood workers making chairs.

i believe royalties are due to the songwriter in this case.


Songwriters and publishers earn music royalties when their music is performed in public, whether on radio, television, clubs, restaurants or concerts.

http://www.ultimatesongwriting.com/music-royalties.html


Copyright licenses
By giving someone a license, you are giving him permission to use your song. Once the song has been recorded and publicly distributed, however, compulsory licensing kicks in and everyone who wants to cover (record) the song can do so without your specific permission. They are required by law to pay you a statutory royalty rate, however, as well as notify you that they're going to release it, and send you monthly royalty statements. They are NOT allowed to make any changes to the words or melody or change the "fundamental character of the song" without the copyright owner's approval. If the song is changed, it is considered a "derivative work." Record companies rarely use compulsory licensing because they don't want to have to provide monthly royalty statements. Instead, they go to the copyright owner and get a direct license so they can negotiate the terms more freely.

when is a song copyrighted?

Copyrights are very important because they identify who actually owns the song and song recording and who gets to make money from it. When songwriters write songs, the songs are automatically copyrighted as soon as they are in a tangible form (like a recording, or fixed as printed sheet music). In order to sue for copyright infringement, however, the song should be registered with the copyright office at the Library of Congress. Registration should always be done before the song is set loose in the public domain (available to hear on a Web site, etc.).

http://entertainment.howstuffworks.com/music-royalties2.htm

[tgbrowning]

"No, there are lots of CDs like this available. Think about a capela versions, string arrangements, and even people like weird al who didn't need permission to remake songs (although he did out of courtesy usually iirc)."

Le me jump in here for a moment and point out that what Weird Al does is called satire and that's a different ball of wax. The object of satire MUST be a clear, direct reference to the material because the point of the production, is to satirize one target (well, generally one -- Al is extremely good at bringin in all sorts of things). The sticky part is the music because it's not clear under fair use how much can be used under satire provisions.

Years and years ago, there was a very popular satirzation that used "Stairway to Heaven" ( satire version was "Stairway to Gilligan's Island") that was played on the radio quite a bit. Doctor Demento had it on a huge number of times. I remember that on the yearly round-up (the Funny 25 he called it), STGI was supposed to be way up on the list, but couldn't be played because of threat of lawsuits. Instead, they put up a different song "One Day in the Life of Green Acres". (Nowhere near as good, but exactly the same spirit as STGI).

Cases like that generally are settled one by one, with good reason.

And if you recall, Weird Al did that one satire "Amish Paradise" and there was some disagreement between Al and Coolio (who did "Gangsta Paradise"). See link below and you'll get a real feel for the complexities satire brings to this mix.

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

Browning>>>

[tgbrowning]

Look, I agree with you 100% that it is all morally wrong what these companies do. But I think that pirating their products isn't helping the situation at all. Look at the MS situation in China that Aysiu referenced. And just think in general about the credibility a 20 year old has trying to argue about his rights to a product that since he couldn't have he stole... it doesn't fly. Do the right things, support music that doesn't come with these restrictions... trust me, it's just as good... and fight the system the right way.

I'm confused. How is what I do NOT support music (if I still could hear, I'd sure as hell be buying CDs) or movies, or the artists that produce movies? I DO buy the material.

I do NOT agree that once the purchase is made, they have any damn business with what I do with it for my own use!

I simply maintain that I have a right, morally, to make a back up copy if I chose, or to dump a copy to my hard disk if I want to watch it from my computer without toting the damn DVD around. Why should you or anybody else give a damn what I do under those circumstances?

I honestly cannot understand why anybody would possibly feel that what I do is wrong. Notice I don't say legal. That's the issue that needs to be fought because that does need to change. That I will fight for.

Browning>>>

[thx11381974]

I don't think your wong. Then again as far as I'm concerned Copyright law might as well be regulating the ethical treatment of Unicorns.

[Erdaron]

And another point to consider -- that I've been meaning to bring up.

Can we say root-kits?

Can we say sneaking spyware and virii into computers via DVDs and CD? Can we say Sony?

According to your logic, Sony was not only justified but morally correct and fully within it's rights to do as it did. Do you actually feel that way?

Browning>>>

Actually, I was thinking about this today.

Companies use DRM technologies to protect their assets, and it is their right to do so. I suppose since they can claim that anyone could be a pirating hacker, DRM will come on everything they sell.

However, I have a right to protect my assets, too. Since I don't know whether a particular DRM technology is safe or not (in the case of Sony's root-kit, it clearly wasn't), don't I have a right to block them?

Also, it is very difficult to simply support companies that don't use DRM or excessively restrictive licensing. What if the band I really like produced by a particularly paranoid company? I am lucky that many of the bands I listen to are on small labels. But if I like a band X, and their label is really mean, I have no choice. Even if the band left that label, music produced under that label would still belong to that label.

[tgbrowning]

I don't think your wong. Then again as far as I'm concerned Copyright law might as well be regulating the ethical treatment of Unicorns.

I'm curious. What do you do for a living? (and I'm not switching the subject, bear with me) Does what you do influence how you view things?

Over the years I've worked of and on as a programmer and I've been a writer all of my life. Not terribly successful, I'll admit, but a writer nonetheless.

Copyright protection has it's place and I like to think I'd believe that even if I didn't have a vested interest in it. I'm almost certain I would, in act ual fact, because what I write (essays, fiction or software) is very important to me and having someone make money off of my sweat, without my permission, strikes me as unfair.

The copyright laws we had were good; the ones we've got now are getting way out of line, though. The problem is the advent of cheap methods -- actually uncontrollable methods -- of digitizing has rendered copyrights extremely difficult to enforce withoutt the consent of society. The vast majority of society has to agree and support copyrights or the system really gets trashed.

We're in a trashing phase right now because far too many people dismply don't agree with the laws as they now stand and I confess that I'm not smart enough to figure out a method to remedy the situation. The only ray of hope that I can see is what happened to copyright law back when radio and later TV, came into wide use.

The music industry set up a method that really didn't require (at that time) much enforcement. There was a stipend payed out to artists and life became a bit fairer.

That no longer works. Got any suggestions as to how to fix the situation?

Browning>>>

[Knyven]

Can we say root-kits?


Does the root kits affect Ubuntu too?

[thx11381974]

I'm curious. What do you do for a living? (and I'm not switching the subject, bear with me) Does what you do influence how you view things?

Over the years I've worked of and on as a programmer and I've been a writer all of my life. Not terribly successful, I'll admit, but a writer nonetheless.

Copyright protection has it's place and I like to think I'd believe that even if I didn't have a vested interest in it. I'm almost certain I would, in act ual fact, because what I write (essays, fiction or software) is very important to me and having someone make money off of my sweat, without my permission, strikes me as unfair.

The copyright laws we had were good; the ones we've got now are getting way out of line, though. The problem is the advent of cheap methods -- actually uncontrollable methods -- of digitizing has rendered copyrights extremely difficult to enforce withoutt the consent of society. The vast majority of society has to agree and support copyrights or the system really gets trashed.

We're in a trashing phase right now because far too many people dismply don't agree with the laws as they now stand and I confess that I'm not smart enough to figure out a method to remedy the situation. The only ray of hope that I can see is what happened to copyright law back when radio and later TV, came into wide use.

The music industry set up a method that really didn't require (at that time) much enforcement. There was a stipend payed out to artists and life became a bit fairer.

That no longer works. Got any suggestions as to how to fix the situation?

Browning>>>

I'm retired mostly, I have a small automotive business but it just for fun. I'm only 33 people expect me to work so I do.
when copyright was invented it was to stop a company from taking someone's book publishing it and not paying the author. What's really insane is copyright law now allows record company's to not pay artist royalties at all. How they completely screw artist is by calling their music a "work for hire" meaning their work belongs completely to the record company, the artist never regains control of their music ever. Heres a fun link that explains how music industry treats the artist they claim to care about so much.

http://cdbaby.net/courtney

My solution is copyright should only apply business.Individuals should be able to do what ever they want as long as they don't make money off it.
Making copyright only apply to only to commercial use solves the problem for the general public, but not artist. The only way I can see to help them is to(Yes I'm serious) only download pirated music. Record labels have to die, it's the only way.The internet has made them irrelevant, once their dead artist will be free to make money way they did before the recording industry existed. The same goes for software their should never be another Bill Gates or David Geffen.

[Dimitriid]

Works out like this most of the time: things I TRULY love I do buy, my movie collection has many dear favorites Ive been slowly but surely buying. In fact for things like The Holy Mountain by Jodorowsky there was literally DECADES where the only way to watch the movie was pirate tapes and ****** vhs to divx scans. Just recently he and Klein decided to bury the hatchet and now there is finally legitimate dvds to be found, which I bought.

But am I gonna lose my sleep because I decided not to buy a cheesy hollywood piece of crap that still makes 400 million+ even with rampant downloading? Not likely. In fact I would not lose any sleep if 99% of the movies released each year would disappear.

As for music, as a former musician I continually got frustrated because for every single jackass that gets a record deal and some mtv airtime there are at least 300 who play the exact same crap everyday at bars and whatnot to see if they can make a buck while really talented people get drown out in a sea of ambitious mediocrecy. I intentionally make a point NOT to buy cds and even used to widely distribute bands I really like to get people to go into gigs when the bands tour, mostly because that is about the only way you are actually supporting an artist otherwise they don't get paid **** for recordsales. And no you don't need hyperfancy studios or anything like that, in Metal smart bands manage ok with amateurish production on their recording.

Games? I'd consider buying them if they ran on Linux, nowadays i don't even bother downloading them since I don't wanna dual boot ( and wine takes a long time to be mature enough to run games, its rarely, if ever, ok with brand new games ).

[Dimitriid]

Copyright protection has it's place and I like to think I'd believe that even if I didn't have a vested interest in it. I'm almost certain I would, in act ual fact, because what I write (essays, fiction or software) is very important to me and having someone make money off of my sweat, without my permission, strikes me as unfair.

So you write to make money then? You create to make money? Just because your economical system doesn't really lends itself to people to choose a creative field as their profession should mean that we should just bow down. Art, culture, creativity is not something that should lend itself to the whim of the free market, what makes no sense to me is that people try to express something completely subjective like art into an arbitrary monetary value. And yes, it has added value ( read: profit ) since you never pay for just the materials or production values you pay for the artistic work.

I will never rest easy so long as we leave in a world which demoralizes and belittles art as a vile, dead and rotten merchandise. All the negative consequences of the modern corporation model to culture are a direct result of this and DRM is by far the worst of it.

[popch]

I will never rest easy so long as we leave in a world which demoralizes and belittles art as a vile, dead and rotten merchandise. All the negative consequences of the modern corporation model to culture are a direct result of this and DRM is by far the worst of it.

Do we have to understand that the people investing their time in writing instead of - say - making furniture must not be paid for their effort? How do they pay their bills?

[Dimitriid]

Do we have to understand that the people investing their time in writing instead of - say - making furniture must not be paid for their effort? How do they pay their bills?

Art should be subsidized by the government, just like Medicine should. To me its that important. Of course the concept of "work" and salary as you understand it is designed to keep most of the world's population oppressed and working like slaves forever. So that is not the kind of remuneration i am talking about. Im talking Socialism.

[popch]

Art should be subsidized by the government, just like Medicine should. To me its that important. Of course the concept of "work" and salary as you understand it is designed to keep most of the world's population oppressed and working like slaves forever. So that is not the kind of remuneration i am talking about. Im talking Socialism.

Oh, ah. Like in Socialist countries where writers, composers and painters where 'encouraged' to produce some kinds of works and 'discouraged' to do others? For the benefit of the community if not of the State itself?

[Dimitriid]

Oh, ah. Like in Socialist countries where writers, composers and painters where 'encouraged' to produce some kinds of works and 'discouraged' to do others?

Socialism doesn't has to imply centralized authoritarian governments ( which in itself is self defeating and time has proven that to be exactly the case )

[tgbrowning]

I honestly can't say that I know. My guess is no -- the Windows OS is fundamentally different from Linux in any flavor.

Anybody happen to know for sure?

[popch]

Socialism doesn't has to imply centralized authoritarian governments ( which in itself is self defeating and time has proven that to be exactly the case )

Well, I thought we were discussing real people living in existing nations.

Since none of us appears to be living in a 'truly socialist' country, my question remains: how do authors pay their bills unless they are paid for the effort they undertake to create their works?

[tgbrowning]

So you write to make money then? You create to make money?

I don't recall saying that. I've been a writer for roughly forty years now, sometime doing a heck of a lot of it, sometimes not. There's never been a time when I wasn't writing something (and I'm not including programming -- that's a different issue and in that case, I've made a living out of it).

I write because I more or less can't not write. Stuff occurs to me and I have to. I'm just not comfortable not writing. Since I write satire sometimes, I use it to relieve anger over the stupid things I see, primarily because I found that I was getting several of my bosses in deep trouble because of my fairly vicious, ironic comments in public meetings. Since the bosses in question were friends, people I liked and respected, I had to do something.

It would be nice to be able to do nothing but writing but I've had to have a job. The hope at one time was that I could make money doing something I loved to do, but haven't been able to.

And that's not really the issue. Most writers, myself included, want to be read. That means getting published, which means getting money as well, generally. Most would say being read was more important, I think.

[Dimitriid]

You could easily get read by publishing yourself through electronic means only. Plus the issues you describe imho have to do more with plagiarism than piracy.

[Dimitriid]

Well, I thought we were discussing real people living in existing nations


No I actually thought you were specifically talking about Stanlinist Russia in which case you would be largely right. If you talk about countries that have made improvements throughout the years like Cuba or countries that have just begun their revolution like Venezuela then your criticism become outdated stereotypes.

[tgbrowning]

Well, I thought we were discussing real people living in existing nations.

Since none of us appears to be living in a 'truly socialist' country, my question remains: how do authors pay their bills unless they are paid for the effort they undertake to create their works?

I'd be interested in the answer myself.

[tgbrowning]

You could easily get read by publishing yourself through electronic means only. Plus the issues you describe imho have to do more with plagiarism than piracy.


I'd have to make a guess that you're not a writer.

And after that last post you made regarding revolutions, Cuba, Stalinist Russia, I'd have to say that I'm afraid there is no common ground between at all. From that I'd have to guess your probably call yourself a Marxist or Leninist and there's not much point in discussing anything with you. If I'm making false assumptions, pray correct me. If not, let's call this discussion over and go about our business.

I have no use for people who think Lenin was anything but a murdering terrorist, or who think Karl Marx was anything other than a silly fool. They are living in a fantasy world.

Browning>>>

[Dimitriid]

Well that is certainly mature.
*sigh*

[23meg]

I have no use for people who think Lenin was anything but a murdering terrorist, or who think Karl Marx was anything other than a silly fool. They are living in a fantasy world.

Please add me to your ignore list. Thanks.

[p_quarles]

Please add me to your ignore list. Thanks.
Yes, add me too.

I've studied Marx's work pretty extensively (in grad school), and while I don't think he got everything right (contemporary Marxists don't think so either), he certainly wasn't a fool.

[NightCrawler03X]

There is a huge difference between "using a free operating system while still torrenting proprietary software" and "using a free operating system but still torrenting tv shows, movies". Most people here speak of the latter and call people who act as such "hyprocrites"? That is obsurd.

Movies and software are to different pieces of fruit.

[23meg]

Here's some Lessig to cheer us up:

http://www.ted.com/talks/view/id/187

[tgbrowning]

No sweat. Take care.

Browning>>>

[tgbrowning]

Well that is certainly mature.
*sigh*

You want mature? You should get it, I think.

I owe you and the forum an apology. I had no business posting that last and normally, I don't do such things. There were a few extenuating circumstances that are private and would be only an excuse and I do not offer them.

What I said about Lenin and Marx I hold to. And I confess frustration with dogmatic socialists, but, and I do mean this, you had not demonstrated such dogmatism and even if you had, it would have rude and boorish to have said what I did.

I'm sorry.

23Meg-- I also owe you one as well. And I owe you a thank you because it was really your remark that made me step and think. Know that you did something very good there.


Browning>>>

[tgbrowning]

Please see my reply earlier, if you would, I apologize to you as well.

Browning>>>

[thx11381974]

Here's some Lessig to cheer us up:

http://www.ted.com/talks/view/id/187

Great video I agree with the allot of what the presenter said. His idea about making copyright apply to business not people is pretty much what I've been arguing. also the reimx video with Bush and Blair was awesome.

Now I'll attack the Marx thing. First I'll admit I have never read anything Marx wrote. I know him only by the terrible legacy he has left. Marxist politics have been tried in nation's through out the world the only thing more stunning than the fact that some people still speak well of Marx is how completely and consistently his politics have failed.
I ask this honestly. What was Marx right about? I guess he had to be right about something, it's like the old saying "Even a broken clock is right twice a day".

[23meg]

tgbrowning, no worries; good to see people who care to step back and reconsider their positions in public.

[rliegh]

If they're going to alter the market place so that they have a monopoly on entertainment and popular culture -then I think that totally justifies piracy.

If they sell me a machine and then tell me that I can't do anything with it other than what they allow me to do -that justifies piracy and it justifies "circumvention".

That's self-defense, plain and simple.

We live in a corporate world, and there is no practical way of getting around that -but any time that you are able to rip off the greedy scum who would deprive you of your freedom (including fair use) you are not only morally allowed to do so -IMHO you are morally obligated to do so.

What this country needs is another <snip> tea party...

[kaiju]

you know i wonder how much of the money made in let's say the music industry actually gets to the musicians. and what an effect my downloading an album through demonoid ever had on the respective band.
and i'm not trying to get away with robbery. i'm just asking where the man i am robbing is. and if he is still there at all.
i mean, come on. this is about rights. about the rights of the author - the person who creates, and about the rights of the user - the person enjoying the piece of work.
still, the actions we witness are the output of some other guys, these big impressive corporations stinking of money and power, who really don't give a damn about the old lady writing the book or the child reading it. they quite obviously only care about money. the big fat money they keep making by restricting both sides' rights for their own benefit.
but where are the people?
technology has brought us means of communication, of sharing information, and of course we've learned to misuse them.
but nothing will change as long as we only see matters the way these third parties want us to see them. we need to learn how to make them disappear.
and all the drm dish and especially these recent torrent site happenings clearly show that they feel threatened. that's why they try to scare the public through legal actions, just to show who has the power before it's too late.