VABills Posted June 27, 2005 Posted June 27, 2005 http://money.cnn.com/2005/06/27/technology...kster/index.htm Well, better watch out it is now illegal and I can assure you if a p2p company gets ued they will release your name and address to have holloywood come after you.
Crap Throwing Monkey Posted June 27, 2005 Posted June 27, 2005 http://money.cnn.com/2005/06/27/technology...kster/index.htm Well, better watch out it is now illegal and I can assure you if a p2p company gets ued they will release your name and address to have holloywood come after you. 368694[/snapback] Just because they can sue file sharing companies doesn't mean they can win... I actually agree with this decision; the movie and music producers should have the right to take the issue to court and have it decided by a jury.
finknottle Posted June 27, 2005 Posted June 27, 2005 Just because they can sue file sharing companies doesn't mean they can win... I actually agree with this decision; the movie and music producers should have the right to take the issue to court and have it decided by a jury. 368701[/snapback] Yes, I am actually heartened by them getting it right. The issue is not the technology, but rather whether or not the company can be said to be facilitating a crime. If so, they can be sued. The classic example is a copy machine. You can make and sell them. If somebody copies a book it is generally not your problem. You can even make a copier that will make and bind a thousand copies. But if you start marketing it to bootleggers and supporting them with a CD on how to make and sell pirated books, you're fair game.
ieatcrayonz Posted June 28, 2005 Posted June 28, 2005 Hard to believe that Napster came out 6 years ago.
IBTG81 Posted June 28, 2005 Posted June 28, 2005 I was pissed when I saw this. I love my P2P networks. That's OK. A different technology will come out soon enough...
UConn James Posted June 28, 2005 Posted June 28, 2005 I was pissed when I saw this. I love my P2P networks. 369373[/snapback] Like the assassin loves his sniper rifle. Copyright infringement is a crime. Same as you walking into a chocolatier and popping coconut cremes without paying. Why does everyone think theft is okay if there isn't a face? If you think it's too expensive, don't buy it -- but don't steal it. Expect to be prosecuted if you continue.
Crap Throwing Monkey Posted June 28, 2005 Posted June 28, 2005 Like the assassin loves his sniper rifle. 369542[/snapback] Yeah, because file sharing software and sniper rifles are obviously similar. You fall out of bed and land on your head overnight or something? You're even more retarded than usual today...
VABills Posted June 28, 2005 Author Posted June 28, 2005 Yeah, because file sharing software and sniper rifles are obviously similar. You fall out of bed and land on your head overnight or something? You're even more retarded than usual today... 369603[/snapback] What the hell? Yesterday we had someone compare breaking into file cabinets with killing 30 million Russians and Jews. Seems like people have an issue with economy of scale.
Crap Throwing Monkey Posted June 28, 2005 Posted June 28, 2005 What the hell? Yesterday we had someone compare breaking into file cabinets with killing 30 million Russians and Jews. Seems like people have an issue with economy of scale. 369606[/snapback] So if file sharing is equivalent to a sniper rifle, does that mean downloading a song is equivalent to killing one Russian? Ergo, breaking into a file cabinet is 30 million times worse than stealing copyrighted material? And what if the song sucks? Or doesn't suck? Or doesn't suck, but you don't like it?...
VABills Posted June 28, 2005 Author Posted June 28, 2005 So if file sharing is equivalent to a sniper rifle, does that mean downloading a song is equivalent to killing one Russian? Ergo, breaking into a file cabinet is 30 million times worse than stealing copyrighted material? And what if the song sucks? Or doesn't suck? Or doesn't suck, but you don't like it?... 369609[/snapback] Meds now.
UConn James Posted June 28, 2005 Posted June 28, 2005 Yeah, because file sharing software and sniper rifles are obviously similar. You fall out of bed and land on your head overnight or something? You're even more retarded than usual today... 369603[/snapback] Huh? I wasn't comparing the crimes, that was a smart*** remark along the lines that there's a similar attention/love/reverence of the implements and tools used to commit a crime.
Crap Throwing Monkey Posted June 28, 2005 Posted June 28, 2005 Meds now. 369613[/snapback] In a bit. I'm still trying to understand UConn's post above...
Crap Throwing Monkey Posted June 28, 2005 Posted June 28, 2005 Huh? I wasn't comparing the crimes, that was a smart*** remark. Still, there's a similar attention/love/reverence of the implements and tools used to commit a crime. 369614[/snapback] Ohhhhh...not comparing the crimes, just the tools...because just as many people use sniper rifles to steal copyrighted material as snipers use file sharing software to kill people...
UConn James Posted June 28, 2005 Posted June 28, 2005 Ohhhhh...not comparing the crimes, just the tools...because just as many people use sniper rifles to steal copyrighted material as snipers use file sharing software to kill people... 369620[/snapback] Pardon my English, but.... HUH?
Crap Throwing Monkey Posted June 28, 2005 Posted June 28, 2005 Pardon my English, but.... HUH? 369627[/snapback] Well...now you know how the rest of us feel when we read your nonsense...
Johnny Coli Posted June 28, 2005 Posted June 28, 2005 This will probably be a pretty unpopular take on this, but I wonder what percentage of the actual artists even care if they're music is getting spread around for free (please don't use Metallica or Everclear as good examples). It seems like the only ones upset about this are the record companies, who could be guilty for ruining commercial music today as it is. I'm not condoning free swapping of downloaded music, but as a former musician, I wouldn't care. I wonder what percentage of people actually go out and then buy other material by the artists. I'm probably in the minority here.
GG Posted June 28, 2005 Posted June 28, 2005 This will probably be a pretty unpopular take on this, but I wonder what percentage of the actual artists even care if they're music is getting spread around for free (please don't use Metallica or Everclear as good examples). It seems like the only ones upset about this are the record companies, who could be guilty for ruining commercial music today as it is. I'm not condoning free swapping of downloaded music, but as a former musician, I wouldn't care. I wonder what percentage of people actually go out and then buy other material by the artists. I'm probably in the minority here. 369647[/snapback] A good proxy for this is to see how many artists allow taping in their concerts. (Answer, very few) Established artists are not idiots. They know fully well that file sharing is taking money out of their pockets, but it's much better to have the label fight the god fight. "Upcoming" artists generally like P2P networks, because it's a distribution avenue for their work that bypasses traditional radio & MTV. But, I don't know if there's any success story of an act being discovered via P2P. So, while the hysteria goes on how P2P is a great new distribution mechanism that will be great for the music community, it's still a much more effective theft mechanism.
UConn James Posted June 28, 2005 Posted June 28, 2005 Well...now you know how the rest of us feel when we read your nonsense... 369629[/snapback] To be clear, I was not making a reference to the relative severity b/w those crimes. I was not equating file-sharing to paid murder. I think you're smart enough to know that. The point all along is the mentality that physical distance or not personally seeing the effects of a crime makes it seem all (or, more) right to the offender. This is probably a bad move to carry the analogy, but.... People/media generally view the dressed-in-black sniper assassin as merely being a professional doing his job, while the goon who knifes someone is, well, a goon. Similarly --- only as it pertains to physical proximity to the respective crime being commited --- there's been a mindset before that people who steal copyrighted works are better, or less worse, than someone who, say, steals a car or for a closer comparison, a CD. Stealing is stealing, no matter what tool or manner you use to steal. Good decision by the court to unquestionably clear this matter up, not that file-sharers didn't know they were breaking the law, just exploiting the absence (tho it wasn't the absence, rather than the interpretation and application of the law to the Internet) of law.
UConn James Posted June 28, 2005 Posted June 28, 2005 This will probably be a pretty unpopular take on this, but I wonder what percentage of the actual artists even care if they're music is getting spread around for free (please don't use Metallica or Everclear as good examples). It seems like the only ones upset about this are the record companies, who could be guilty for ruining commercial music today as it is. I'm not condoning free swapping of downloaded music, but as a former musician, I wouldn't care. I wonder what percentage of people actually go out and then buy other material by the artists. I'm probably in the minority here. 369647[/snapback] Like GG said, for small-time artists, it's probably a good thing. Nothing prevents them from putting their songs on their websites, and I guess it would be fine for people to share those songs too. But we all know that isn't what's being done. SC's decision allows the industry to go after people who use it to break copyright law. In the long run, large-scale file-sharing would kill the industry. As much as people might think, that money doesn't go exclusively to the artist or the record label. A fair chunk of it might, rightly so since they take the most risk in the venture (those damn capitalists! ), but they also have to pay the people who design the CD cover, the promotional material, shipping costs, etc. When the money doesn't come in to pay the bills, the operation ceases to function -- the Invisible Hand at work, ladies and gents. Maybe an individual artist doesn't care, but they will care when the record company goes under or refuses to put their music out b/c it'll just be file-shared.
Johnny Coli Posted June 28, 2005 Posted June 28, 2005 In the long run, large-scale file-sharing would kill the industry. As much as people might think, that money doesn't go exclusively to the artist or the record label. A fair chunk of it might, rightly so since they take the most risk in the venture (those damn capitalists! ), but they also have to pay the people who design the CD cover, the promotional material, shipping costs, etc. When the money doesn't come in to pay the bills, the operation ceases to function -- the Invisible Hand at work, ladies and gents. Maybe an individual artist doesn't care, but they will care when the record company goes under or refuses to put their music out b/c it'll just be file-shared. 369676[/snapback] Again I say, "So what?" The music industry is a bloated dinosaur still doing things like they did in the 70s. Blow it up. Nobody tours anymore. Nobody writes their own songs. The music companies look for a packagable stereotype to mass distribute. They own the radio stations, so it gets played ad nauseum until someone buys into their crap and then purchases it because some clown on MTV is paid to say that it's "hip." Who cares if they go under? Like you said, the artist sees little to no money from these sales, anyway.
Recommended Posts