|
Thank you. Finally someone who knows what they are talking about. The record company's have drilled us into thinking what we are doing is stealing. It's called copyright infringement. When you steal a physical good is lost. When you download a song you are just creating a copy, no tangible good is lost. Therefore it is not stealing. Is copyright infringement wrong? I'll let you decide the morality yourself. However It's NOT stealing.
It takes up "space" on your hard drive, doesn't it?
Your argument is pure sophistry. You don't have the ability to play that song / that game or watch that movie or read that book, you download it and create a copy without paying, you can now play / watch / read it.
You don't have the right to decide that what someone else has created and/or owns, you won't pay for. They made it and own it, or have an agreement with the creator(s) and own it. Several someones spent at the very least time and effort to create it, at the least, they spent things they can't get back in return for receiving money for it or the pleasure of entertaining others or gaining praise and respect for their creations, etc., and so they have the right to distribute it for free or for a cost, however they want. You don't have the right to appropriate what they've created just because you can.
|
to the OP-
here's a handy little guide regarding the matter. hope this helps.
![[image loading]](http://www.allmotivated.com/pictures/Demotivational-pictures-piracy_Vs_Theft.jpg)
|
^ The kind of bullheaded bad argument that piracy supporters repeat without understanding why it gets rejected by legislators and more importantly judges over and over again.
|
On February 21 2012 14:24 firehand101 wrote:
SOPA. ACTA. other random crap.
^^these acts are supposedly trying to 'censor' material and restrict freedom of speech and expression. Well, that is what we all think anyway.
The bills proposed are much too radical and provide those in government and business too much power. With these bills they can censor a large amount of material, which is why we stopped them. But through all this controversy, it will get smaller. But not disappear.
The main issues these regulations are aiming to address are piracy and online theft. Whether you like it or not, eventually all of your favorite sites like mega upload (already taken down), pirate bay, 4shared and many others will disappear. Is this censorship? Cant you argue that you have a right to share files?
The bottom line is, well, we internet people have created a fantasy world for ourselves. For as long as I can remember, we have been sharing and receiving illegal files without any repercussions, as the internet is 'too big' for anyone to get singled out and prosecuted. This fairy tale land will not last. That is what I am trying to say.
People are catching on now, and it is only a matter of time before this material will be blocked. Because, in reality, you are stealing. You are taking money from corporations. of course it doesnt mean #$%#, of course the companies dont even notice when they are driving around in their lambo's and living it up in their penthouses. But it is stealing, whether you accept it or not is your choice.
All of this fussing and fighting about these legislations is understood, because we have been doing it for so long we feel that the internet would just not be the same without it. But it is stealing. It has to be stopped, and there is no way around it.
TLDR: WE ARE STEALING. Seriously, whether you like it or not, internet piracy will be stopped, we cant keep on stealing and whine when the government is going to do something about it
you mean like the government stopped the evil spread of alcohol in the 1920's?
we have indeed been sharing illegal files, even long before the internet existed actually. im sure you all remember VHS recording. something is on tv or a movie channel, you record it and lend the tape to your friend....guess what, its the same thing as torrenting the movie now, at least from a legal perspective. Mixed tapes, same thing as limewire was.
It hasn't been stopped yet, it won't be stopped at all. all that will happen is it will make it slightly harder for people to find the stuff and piss off alot of people who may decide to do something about it.
|
Part of it stems from the fact that selling and transferring a physical object, like a tape, was something the media companies disliked but tacitly accepted, simply because not doing so would be kinda nuts. It worked because even when something was out on the market, the ability to access content didn't increase when the tapes were transferred, and when tapes were copied (which was technically illegal), it required more equipment and was hard to redistribute anyways.
The internet set both of these aspects on fire. The ability to access content is essentially unlimited with a simple "copy" and redistributing it through P2P is not hard at all. While the initial scenario I talked about was tolerable, if everyone pirated the information economy would collapse-- period. The problem now is trying to create a legal framework where the latter isn't a possibility, and Congress (specifically Lamar Smith) is not knowledgeable enough to do so.
|
On March 17 2012 12:40 DeepElemBlues wrote:
^ The kind of bullheaded bad argument that piracy supporters repeat without understanding why it gets rejected by legislators and more importantly judges over and over again.
Exactly. If you were to hire a laborer and not pay him, it would be theft. Has anything actually been taken? Not technically, but you have stolen the services. Same applies here.
|
On March 17 2012 13:31 Encrypto wrote:Show nested quote +On March 17 2012 12:40 DeepElemBlues wrote:
^ The kind of bullheaded bad argument that piracy supporters repeat without understanding why it gets rejected by legislators and more importantly judges over and over again. Exactly. If you were to hire a laborer and not pay him, it would be theft. Has anything actually been taken? Not technically, but you have stolen the services. Same applies here.
actually it isn't theft, theft is a criminal charge, he would be able to sue you for breach of contract, but not theft
|
On March 17 2012 13:49 polysciguy wrote:Show nested quote +On March 17 2012 13:31 Encrypto wrote:On March 17 2012 12:40 DeepElemBlues wrote:
^ The kind of bullheaded bad argument that piracy supporters repeat without understanding why it gets rejected by legislators and more importantly judges over and over again. Exactly. If you were to hire a laborer and not pay him, it would be theft. Has anything actually been taken? Not technically, but you have stolen the services. Same applies here. actually it isn't theft, theft is a criminal charge, he would be able to sue you for breach of contract, but not theft
^ This. I run a business and we install our product before full payment. If a customer doesn't pay its not theft. Its a bad debt. We can't have them arrested for theft. We have to chase the bad debt various ways... but its not theft. The law is a tricky thing and copying digital entertainment is NOT THEFT. God some people are so bull headed and stupid.
To be honest people copy our products all the time. It annoys us.. but you know what we do? We make newer and better products so that our products are always the best and people still come to us to get the best.
Perhaps if the entertainment industry decided to do that the world would be a better place for everyone.
|
I think someone in the same position as the IP folk these days said it best.
Let them eat cake.
|
+ Show Spoiler +
The state of Arizona could find itself in the company of countries like China and Syria for censoring the Internet if the state's governor signs a bill recently passed by the legislature.
Arizona House Bill 2549, which is now on Gov. Jan Brewer's desk for signature, was created to counter bullying and stalking. The law would make it a crime to use any electronic or digital device to communicate using "obscene, lewd or profane language" or to suggest a lewd or lascivious act, if done with the intent to "terrify, intimidate, threaten, harass, annoy or offend."
First Amendment rights group Media Coalition, which represents the Motion Picture Association of America, the Recording Industry Association of America, the Association of American Publishers and other related groups, says the bill is not only a violation of the First Amendment, but is so far-ranging as to be preposterous.
In a letter to the governor, the coalition said while government can criminalize speech "that rises to the level of harassment, and many states have laws that do so," Arizona's legislation:
... takes a law meant to address irritating phone calls and applies it to communication on web sites, blogs, listserves and other Internet communication. H.B. 2549 is not limited to a one to one conversation between two specific people. The communication does not need to be repetitive or even unwanted. There is no requirement that the recipient or subject of the speech actually feel offended, annoyed or scared. Nor does the legislation make clear that the communication must be intended to offend or annoy the reader, the subject or even any specific person.
This bill isn't the first the legislature has tackled when it comes to regulating what's said -- or seen -- electronically. Another, Senate Bill 1219, would let parents see the text messages on the phones of their children, if they're under the age of 18. That legislation remains in committee.
H.B. 2549 "would apply to the Internet as a whole, thus criminalizing all manner of writing, cartoons, and other protected material the state finds offensive or annoying," Media Coalition says on its website -- at least for now, until what it says is found to be offensive or annoying by those in Arizona.
http://www.technolog.msnbc.msn.com/technology/technolog/arizona-law-would-censor-internet-631407#
Amer- Arizona... Fuck yeah! lol
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
