Torrent Talk (1 Viewer)

[jdoggydogg]

I can accept that. But then its stealing if I make my rips available to friends and family as well. There should be no moral high ground that torrenting is worse.

There are at least two seperate arguments here. The RIAA says that I cannot buy a CD, rip it to my computer, and then listen to that same CD in my car. I think that's pretty silly. I'm saying that if you download an entire CD for free on a torrent site, that is tantamount to stealing the CD from a store. The RIAA has some petty, antiquated views on music in the digital age. But downloading music for free is stealing.

I totally understand. This is where the argument becomes more difficult.

Exactly my point. No here would think twice about sharing and ripping music for family, but as soon you introduce torrents it becomes taboo. Can't have it both ways.

Like others have said, its ALL stealing. Can't get high and mighty though (like the OP) if it occurs with torrents.

I'm not claiming moral high ground, to clarify.

Can you agree that paying for a CD download on iTunes and then sharing that with a friend is not the same as downloading it for free on torrents? If you share music on a torrent site, it's possible that you're participating in thousands of free downloads. Can you agree that isn't the same as sharing music you paid for with two friends?

 

[Amused to Death]

I can accept that. But then its stealing if I make my rips available to friends and family as well. There should be no moral high ground that torrenting is worse.

There are at least two seperate arguments here. The RIAA says that I cannot buy a CD, rip it to my computer, and then listen to that same CD in my car. I think that's pretty silly. I'm saying that if you download an entire CD for free on a torrent site, that is tantamount to stealing the CD from a store. The RIAA has some petty, antiquated views on music in the digital age. But downloading music for free is stealing.

I totally understand. This is where the argument becomes more difficult.

Exactly my point. No here would think twice about sharing and ripping music for family, but as soon you introduce torrents it becomes taboo. Can't have it both ways.

Like others have said, its ALL stealing. Can't get high and mighty though (like the OP) if it occurs with torrents.

I'm not claiming moral high ground, to clarify.

Can you agree that paying for a CD download on iTunes and then sharing that with a friend is not the same as downloading it for free on torrents? If you share music on a torrent site, it's possible that you're participating in thousands of free downloads. Can you agree that isn't the same as sharing music you paid for with two friends?

I can agree its not the same magnitude. But its still stealing copyright infringment. Is there a big difference if I use bittorrent to grab a new release or rip it from my brother? I'm still getting it for free. Or if I login to my wife's iTunes account?

Like I said many posts ago, its all picking nits.

 

[jdoggydogg]

I can accept that. But then its stealing if I make my rips available to friends and family as well. There should be no moral high ground that torrenting is worse.

There are at least two seperate arguments here. The RIAA says that I cannot buy a CD, rip it to my computer, and then listen to that same CD in my car. I think that's pretty silly. I'm saying that if you download an entire CD for free on a torrent site, that is tantamount to stealing the CD from a store. The RIAA has some petty, antiquated views on music in the digital age. But downloading music for free is stealing.

I totally understand. This is where the argument becomes more difficult.

Exactly my point. No here would think twice about sharing and ripping music for family, but as soon you introduce torrents it becomes taboo. Can't have it both ways.

Like others have said, its ALL stealing. Can't get high and mighty though (like the OP) if it occurs with torrents.

I'm not claiming moral high ground, to clarify.

Can you agree that paying for a CD download on iTunes and then sharing that with a friend is not the same as downloading it for free on torrents? If you share music on a torrent site, it's possible that you're participating in thousands of free downloads. Can you agree that isn't the same as sharing music you paid for with two friends?

I can agree its not the same magnitude. But its still stealing copyright infringment. Is there a big difference if I use bittorrent to grab a new release or rip it from my brother? I'm still getting it for free. Or if I login to my wife's iTunes account?

Like I said many posts ago, its all picking nits.

If I drive 60 mph in a 55 mph zone, I can get a speeding ticket. Now, this is not likely. Even though I am driving over the legal speed limit, the police have an unwritten tacit approval of this behavior because it's not excessive.

Similarly, participating in 10,000 downloads of a brand new film that was ripped from a screener is a lot different than making one copy of a DVD you purchased for a friend. You call this nitpicking, but I think the two are very different.

 

[culdeus]

I would like to see the Supreme Court fight where someone's threesome scene gets ripped off xhamster and the plantiff has to argue that the work was unique and differentiated enough to meet the standard. Then I'd like to see Hollywood make the same case for Red Dawn or some other ####ty movie.

Just because you release it in a theater doesn't automatically mean you get protection.

That being said i have no idea how the porn industry survives. I'm sure Otis pays for all his porn sites so that should cover it for all of us.

 

[culdeus]

I can accept that. But then its stealing if I make my rips available to friends and family as well. There should be no moral high ground that torrenting is worse.

There are at least two seperate arguments here. The RIAA says that I cannot buy a CD, rip it to my computer, and then listen to that same CD in my car. I think that's pretty silly. I'm saying that if you download an entire CD for free on a torrent site, that is tantamount to stealing the CD from a store. The RIAA has some petty, antiquated views on music in the digital age. But downloading music for free is stealing.

I totally understand. This is where the argument becomes more difficult.

Exactly my point. No here would think twice about sharing and ripping music for family, but as soon you introduce torrents it becomes taboo. Can't have it both ways.Like others have said, its ALL stealing. Can't get high and mighty though (like the OP) if it occurs with torrents.

I'm not claiming moral high ground, to clarify.

Can you agree that paying for a CD download on iTunes and then sharing that with a friend is not the same as downloading it for free on torrents? If you share music on a torrent site, it's possible that you're participating in thousands of free downloads. Can you agree that isn't the same as sharing music you paid for with two friends?

I can agree its not the same magnitude. But its still stealing copyright infringment. Is there a big difference if I use bittorrent to grab a new release or rip it from my brother? I'm still getting it for free. Or if I login to my wife's iTunes account?Like I said many posts ago, its all picking nits.

If I drive 60 mph in a 55 mph zone, I can get a speeding ticket. Now, this is not likely. Even though I am driving over the legal speed limit, the police have an unwritten tacit approval of this behavior because it's not excessive.

Similarly, participating in 10,000 downloads of a brand new film that was ripped from a screener is a lot different than making one copy of a DVD you purchased for a friend. You call this nitpicking, but I think the two are very different.

FYI it is totally illegal to rip a DVD for any reason whatsoever

 

[Amused to Death]

I can accept that. But then its stealing if I make my rips available to friends and family as well. There should be no moral high ground that torrenting is worse.

There are at least two seperate arguments here. The RIAA says that I cannot buy a CD, rip it to my computer, and then listen to that same CD in my car. I think that's pretty silly. I'm saying that if you download an entire CD for free on a torrent site, that is tantamount to stealing the CD from a store. The RIAA has some petty, antiquated views on music in the digital age. But downloading music for free is stealing.

I totally understand. This is where the argument becomes more difficult.

Exactly my point. No here would think twice about sharing and ripping music for family, but as soon you introduce torrents it becomes taboo. Can't have it both ways.

Like others have said, its ALL stealing. Can't get high and mighty though (like the OP) if it occurs with torrents.

I'm not claiming moral high ground, to clarify.

Can you agree that paying for a CD download on iTunes and then sharing that with a friend is not the same as downloading it for free on torrents? If you share music on a torrent site, it's possible that you're participating in thousands of free downloads. Can you agree that isn't the same as sharing music you paid for with two friends?

I can agree its not the same magnitude. But its still stealing copyright infringment. Is there a big difference if I use bittorrent to grab a new release or rip it from my brother? I'm still getting it for free. Or if I login to my wife's iTunes account?

Like I said many posts ago, its all picking nits.

If I drive 60 mph in a 55 mph zone, I can get a speeding ticket. Now, this is not likely. Even though I am driving over the legal speed limit, the police have an unwritten tacit approval of this behavior because it's not excessive.

Similarly, participating in 10,000 downloads of a brand new film that was ripped from a screener is a lot different than making one copy of a DVD you purchased for a friend. You call this nitpicking, but I think the two are very different.

I agree very different, in magnitude. The same laws are being broken. If a cop chooses to write me a ticket for going 60, its the same offense as if I got one for going 80. Does that mean the person going 60 is obeying the law? Of course they aren't.

And I'd even say the person offering their rips for download are worse than those doing down loading. But looking from the perspective of the person d/l'ing, is it a big difference for me to use bittorent vs. logging into a family member's library? I'm still getting the same music/movie, at my leisure, without paying.

 

[jdoggydogg]

I can accept that. But then its stealing if I make my rips available to friends and family as well. There should be no moral high ground that torrenting is worse.

There are at least two seperate arguments here. The RIAA says that I cannot buy a CD, rip it to my computer, and then listen to that same CD in my car. I think that's pretty silly. I'm saying that if you download an entire CD for free on a torrent site, that is tantamount to stealing the CD from a store. The RIAA has some petty, antiquated views on music in the digital age. But downloading music for free is stealing.

I totally understand. This is where the argument becomes more difficult.

Exactly my point. No here would think twice about sharing and ripping music for family, but as soon you introduce torrents it becomes taboo. Can't have it both ways.Like others have said, its ALL stealing. Can't get high and mighty though (like the OP) if it occurs with torrents.

I'm not claiming moral high ground, to clarify.

Can you agree that paying for a CD download on iTunes and then sharing that with a friend is not the same as downloading it for free on torrents? If you share music on a torrent site, it's possible that you're participating in thousands of free downloads. Can you agree that isn't the same as sharing music you paid for with two friends?

I can agree its not the same magnitude. But its still stealing copyright infringment. Is there a big difference if I use bittorrent to grab a new release or rip it from my brother? I'm still getting it for free. Or if I login to my wife's iTunes account?Like I said many posts ago, its all picking nits.

If I drive 60 mph in a 55 mph zone, I can get a speeding ticket. Now, this is not likely. Even though I am driving over the legal speed limit, the police have an unwritten tacit approval of this behavior because it's not excessive.

Similarly, participating in 10,000 downloads of a brand new film that was ripped from a screener is a lot different than making one copy of a DVD you purchased for a friend. You call this nitpicking, but I think the two are very different.

FYI it is totally illegal to rip a DVD for any reason whatsoever

Yes, and it's also against the law to drive three miles an hour over the speed limit.

 

[jdoggydogg]

I can accept that. But then its stealing if I make my rips available to friends and family as well. There should be no moral high ground that torrenting is worse.

There are at least two seperate arguments here. The RIAA says that I cannot buy a CD, rip it to my computer, and then listen to that same CD in my car. I think that's pretty silly. I'm saying that if you download an entire CD for free on a torrent site, that is tantamount to stealing the CD from a store. The RIAA has some petty, antiquated views on music in the digital age. But downloading music for free is stealing.

I totally understand. This is where the argument becomes more difficult.

Exactly my point. No here would think twice about sharing and ripping music for family, but as soon you introduce torrents it becomes taboo. Can't have it both ways.

Like others have said, its ALL stealing. Can't get high and mighty though (like the OP) if it occurs with torrents.

I'm not claiming moral high ground, to clarify.

Can you agree that paying for a CD download on iTunes and then sharing that with a friend is not the same as downloading it for free on torrents? If you share music on a torrent site, it's possible that you're participating in thousands of free downloads. Can you agree that isn't the same as sharing music you paid for with two friends?

I can agree its not the same magnitude. But its still stealing copyright infringment. Is there a big difference if I use bittorrent to grab a new release or rip it from my brother? I'm still getting it for free. Or if I login to my wife's iTunes account?

Like I said many posts ago, its all picking nits.

If I drive 60 mph in a 55 mph zone, I can get a speeding ticket. Now, this is not likely. Even though I am driving over the legal speed limit, the police have an unwritten tacit approval of this behavior because it's not excessive.

Similarly, participating in 10,000 downloads of a brand new film that was ripped from a screener is a lot different than making one copy of a DVD you purchased for a friend. You call this nitpicking, but I think the two are very different.

I agree very different, in magnitude. The same laws are being broken. If a cop chooses to write me a ticket for going 60, its the same offense as if I got one for going 80. Does that mean the person going 60 is obeying the law? Of course they aren't.

And I'd even say the person offering their rips for download are worse than those doing down loading. But looking from the perspective of the person d/l'ing, is it a big difference for me to use bittorent vs. logging into a family member's library? I'm still getting the same music/movie, at my leisure, without paying.

Here's where the copyright laws get silly: I don't see a moral difference between showing 10 family members a DVD I've bought and offering them a rip to watch the film once.

 

[Amused to Death]

Here's where the copyright laws get silly: I don't see a moral difference between showing 10 family members a DVD I've bought and offering them a rip to watch the film once.

Yup. Times are different and the laws usually lag behind the technology. Good discussion though.

 

[jdoggydogg]

I remember reading a fascinating interview with the creator of Bittorrent. The guy is very bright, and he had interesting things to say about sharing. He said that the industry is selling a product that's wasteful, expensive, and outdated.

That said, studies show that people are willing to pay for content as long as it's good quality and easily accessable. Funny thing is, while the RIAA was mired in fighting a battle with the wrong weapons, Netflix proved that a new model could be profitable.

 

[tonydead]

You are an idiot. You throw around vague claims about copyright law and then tell us to go google white papers to understand your silly babblings.

You are misinformed/uninformed. You clearly know a little about copyright law, enough to sound like you might know something, but you actually know very little and you seem to actually "know" things that are the exact opposite of reality.

Well done. You have convinced everyone you can cut and paste a blurb about a US Supreme Court case that says that for criminal law purposes counterfeit/infringing copies are not stolen. Well done.

Where are these cut and paste Wiki blurbs you keep talking about?

 

[drummer]

Did we really just have a patent attorney just dismiss the judgement of the supreme court's appraisal of the classification of an action as stealing or not?

Its significant because theft is pretty black and white and almost always prosecuted when charged. Copyright is a huge gray area especially with digital media. That's why individuals never get charged anymore. But the MPAA, RRIA and Otis like to say its the same to try and move the grey to their side.

I know you threw up a couple wikipedia blurbs Supreme Court cases, but you really dont know much about this stuff, do you?

"Copyright is a huge gray area especially with digital media." What are you babbling about? What huge gray area? Are you trying to say individuals never get charged any more because the law isnt clear? Because that is idiotic. What are trying to say here with this vague nonsense about gray areas and prosecutions?

It means someone has to actually place value on the .avi or .mp4 that you aren't distributing in mass, and then figure how much money you made from it. Of course, the charges against Granny for a torrent that exceeds over $30,000 didn't help the industry not look anymore greedy, even though she didn't know someone was leeching her WiFi and bandwidth and was downloading all kinds of files that were already on the internet to begin with.

Already on the internet to begin with...

Somehow, this is more valuable than health care?

This is what he meant by "gray area"? Are you sure? Because it looks like you are confusing criminal copyright infringement with the innocent versus willful civil infringement cutoff for statutory damages. I think you are trying to say that there are valuation issues in civil copyright infringement cases and/or criminal copyright issues, is that right?

I think what you're trying to accomplish is criminalizing file sharers like they were drug users. For a die hard liberal kook like yourself, that really works out, doesn't it?

BTW, I posted this once already:

SOPA.

That's what you want, right?

 

[Todd Andrews]

Stealing is wrong. Sinner.

Should people who torrent copywrited material be prosecuted in your opinion?

Until the criminal copyright law is changed, of course. That is a no brainer.

So should I be prosecuted for copying my music library for my family to use? If we have multiple copies of 1 purchased cd?

Does that fall within the parameters of criminal copyright infringement?

How could it not? Still making copies for people who won't buy the material. Is there a legal difference if I'm making copies for 2 or 200?

I think you may want to google Audio Home Recording Act.

I'll take your word for it. Does it say I can share my cloud log in with family? Or coworkers? So sharing with 10 family member is ok, but copying for a friend isn't? Does the AHRA address that?

You should step out of this debate for a little but, and go do some basic research, because you are asking a bunch of questions that are easily answered under current law and not pertinent to anything anyone else is talking about in this thread.

 

[drummer]

Stealing is wrong. Sinner.

Should people who torrent copywrited material be prosecuted in your opinion?

Until the criminal copyright law is changed, of course. That is a no brainer.

So should I be prosecuted for copying my music library for my family to use? If we have multiple copies of 1 purchased cd?

Does that fall within the parameters of criminal copyright infringement?

How could it not? Still making copies for people who won't buy the material. Is there a legal difference if I'm making copies for 2 or 200?

I think you may want to google Audio Home Recording Act.

I'll take your word for it. Does it say I can share my cloud log in with family? Or coworkers? So sharing with 10 family member is ok, but copying for a friend isn't? Does the AHRA address that?

You should step out of this debate for a little but, and go do some basic research, because you are asking a bunch of questions that are easily answered under current law and not pertinent to anything anyone else is talking about in this thread.

Laws like DCMA?

 

[Todd Andrews]

I can accept that. But then its stealing if I make my rips available to friends and family as well. There should be no moral high ground that torrenting is worse.

There are at least two seperate arguments here. The RIAA says that I cannot buy a CD, rip it to my computer, and then listen to that same CD in my car. I think that's pretty silly. I'm saying that if you download an entire CD for free on a torrent site, that is tantamount to stealing the CD from a store. The RIAA has some petty, antiquated views on music in the digital age. But downloading music for free is stealing.

I totally understand. This is where the argument becomes more difficult.

Exactly my point. No here would think twice about sharing and ripping music for family, but as soon you introduce torrents it becomes taboo. Can't have it both ways.

Like others have said, its ALL stealing copyright infringement . Can't get high and mighty though (like the OP) if it occurs with torrents.

Would it change your analysis if ripping and sharing your music for your family were legal?

 

[drummer]

I can accept that. But then its stealing if I make my rips available to friends and family as well. There should be no moral high ground that torrenting is worse.

There are at least two seperate arguments here. The RIAA says that I cannot buy a CD, rip it to my computer, and then listen to that same CD in my car. I think that's pretty silly. I'm saying that if you download an entire CD for free on a torrent site, that is tantamount to stealing the CD from a store. The RIAA has some petty, antiquated views on music in the digital age. But downloading music for free is stealing.

I totally understand. This is where the argument becomes more difficult.

Exactly my point. No here would think twice about sharing and ripping music for family, but as soon you introduce torrents it becomes taboo. Can't have it both ways.

Like others have said, its ALL stealing copyright infringement . Can't get high and mighty though (like the OP) if it occurs with torrents.

Would it change your analysis if ripping and sharing your music for your family were legal?

Oh I see. You're poking the finger at the smaller issue rather than argue the global one.

 

[Todd Andrews]

Did we really just have a patent attorney just dismiss the judgement of the supreme court's appraisal of the classification of an action as stealing or not?

Its significant because theft is pretty black and white and almost always prosecuted when charged. Copyright is a huge gray area especially with digital media. That's why individuals never get charged anymore. But the MPAA, RRIA and Otis like to say its the same to try and move the grey to their side.

I know you threw up a couple wikipedia blurbs Supreme Court cases, but you really dont know much about this stuff, do you?

"Copyright is a huge gray area especially with digital media." What are you babbling about? What huge gray area? Are you trying to say individuals never get charged any more because the law isnt clear? Because that is idiotic. What are trying to say here with this vague nonsense about gray areas and prosecutions?

It means someone has to actually place value on the .avi or .mp4 that you aren't distributing in mass, and then figure how much money you made from it. Of course, the charges against Granny for a torrent that exceeds over $30,000 didn't help the industry not look anymore greedy, even though she didn't know someone was leeching her WiFi and bandwidth and was downloading all kinds of files that were already on the internet to begin with.

Already on the internet to begin with...

Somehow, this is more valuable than health care?

This is what he meant by "gray area"? Are you sure? Because it looks like you are confusing criminal copyright infringement with the innocent versus willful civil infringement cutoff for statutory damages. I think you are trying to say that there are valuation issues in civil copyright infringement cases and/or criminal copyright issues, is that right?

I think what you're trying to accomplish is criminalizing file sharers like they were drug users. For a die hard liberal kook like yourself, that really works out, doesn't it?

BTW, I posted this once already:

SOPA.

That's what you want, right?

I am totally against SOPA.

 

[drummer]

Did we really just have a patent attorney just dismiss the judgement of the supreme court's appraisal of the classification of an action as stealing or not?

Its significant because theft is pretty black and white and almost always prosecuted when charged. Copyright is a huge gray area especially with digital media. That's why individuals never get charged anymore. But the MPAA, RRIA and Otis like to say its the same to try and move the grey to their side.

I know you threw up a couple wikipedia blurbs Supreme Court cases, but you really dont know much about this stuff, do you?

"Copyright is a huge gray area especially with digital media." What are you babbling about? What huge gray area? Are you trying to say individuals never get charged any more because the law isnt clear? Because that is idiotic. What are trying to say here with this vague nonsense about gray areas and prosecutions?

It means someone has to actually place value on the .avi or .mp4 that you aren't distributing in mass, and then figure how much money you made from it. Of course, the charges against Granny for a torrent that exceeds over $30,000 didn't help the industry not look anymore greedy, even though she didn't know someone was leeching her WiFi and bandwidth and was downloading all kinds of files that were already on the internet to begin with.

Already on the internet to begin with...

Somehow, this is more valuable than health care?

This is what he meant by "gray area"? Are you sure? Because it looks like you are confusing criminal copyright infringement with the innocent versus willful civil infringement cutoff for statutory damages. I think you are trying to say that there are valuation issues in civil copyright infringement cases and/or criminal copyright issues, is that right?

I think what you're trying to accomplish is criminalizing file sharers like they were drug users. For a die hard liberal kook like yourself, that really works out, doesn't it?

BTW, I posted this once already:

SOPA.

That's what you want, right?

I am totally against SOPA.

Why is that so? It stands for Stop Online Piracy Act.

 

[Todd Andrews]

I can accept that. But then its stealing if I make my rips available to friends and family as well. There should be no moral high ground that torrenting is worse.

There are at least two seperate arguments here. The RIAA says that I cannot buy a CD, rip it to my computer, and then listen to that same CD in my car. I think that's pretty silly. I'm saying that if you download an entire CD for free on a torrent site, that is tantamount to stealing the CD from a store. The RIAA has some petty, antiquated views on music in the digital age. But downloading music for free is stealing.

I totally understand. This is where the argument becomes more difficult.

Exactly my point. No here would think twice about sharing and ripping music for family, but as soon you introduce torrents it becomes taboo. Can't have it both ways.

Like others have said, its ALL stealing copyright infringement . Can't get high and mighty though (like the OP) if it occurs with torrents.

Would it change your analysis if ripping and sharing your music for your family were legal?

Oh I see. You're poking the finger at the smaller issue rather than argue the global one.

Well, he keeps talking about things that are legal as if they were illegal and then comparing them to things that are illegal as if the comparisons have some validity. I am just pointing out maybe he should look into what is actually currently allowed under copyright law before engaging in a debate about it.

 

[Amused to Death]

Exactly my point. No here would think twice about sharing and ripping music for family, but as soon you introduce torrents it becomes taboo. Can't have it both ways.


Like others have said, its ALL stealing copyright infringement . Can't get high and mighty though (like the OP) if it occurs with torrents.

Would it change your analysis if ripping and sharing your music for your family were legal?

Not trying to be argumentative, but the quick search I did on <whatever it was you referred to> only seemed to make it legal to make your own digital copies. I didn't see where it said you could buy a disc and distribute it to your friends and family. Can you post what your referring to?

And no, it wouldn't change my opinion that there isn't much difference between someone using bittorrent to get a disc and obtaining the same thing from a relative. Either way, I'm getting the disc for free.

 

[Todd Andrews]

Did we really just have a patent attorney just dismiss the judgement of the supreme court's appraisal of the classification of an action as stealing or not?

Its significant because theft is pretty black and white and almost always prosecuted when charged. Copyright is a huge gray area especially with digital media. That's why individuals never get charged anymore. But the MPAA, RRIA and Otis like to say its the same to try and move the grey to their side.

I know you threw up a couple wikipedia blurbs Supreme Court cases, but you really dont know much about this stuff, do you?

"Copyright is a huge gray area especially with digital media." What are you babbling about? What huge gray area? Are you trying to say individuals never get charged any more because the law isnt clear? Because that is idiotic. What are trying to say here with this vague nonsense about gray areas and prosecutions?

It means someone has to actually place value on the .avi or .mp4 that you aren't distributing in mass, and then figure how much money you made from it. Of course, the charges against Granny for a torrent that exceeds over $30,000 didn't help the industry not look anymore greedy, even though she didn't know someone was leeching her WiFi and bandwidth and was downloading all kinds of files that were already on the internet to begin with.

Already on the internet to begin with...

Somehow, this is more valuable than health care?

This is what he meant by "gray area"? Are you sure? Because it looks like you are confusing criminal copyright infringement with the innocent versus willful civil infringement cutoff for statutory damages. I think you are trying to say that there are valuation issues in civil copyright infringement cases and/or criminal copyright issues, is that right?

I think what you're trying to accomplish is criminalizing file sharers like they were drug users. For a die hard liberal kook like yourself, that really works out, doesn't it?

BTW, I posted this once already:

SOPA.

That's what you want, right?

I am totally against SOPA.

Why is that so? It stands for Stop Online Piracy Act.

Lots of laws have silly names.

 

[drummer]

Did we really just have a patent attorney just dismiss the judgement of the supreme court's appraisal of the classification of an action as stealing or not?

Its significant because theft is pretty black and white and almost always prosecuted when charged. Copyright is a huge gray area especially with digital media. That's why individuals never get charged anymore. But the MPAA, RRIA and Otis like to say its the same to try and move the grey to their side.

I know you threw up a couple wikipedia blurbs Supreme Court cases, but you really dont know much about this stuff, do you?

"Copyright is a huge gray area especially with digital media." What are you babbling about? What huge gray area? Are you trying to say individuals never get charged any more because the law isnt clear? Because that is idiotic. What are trying to say here with this vague nonsense about gray areas and prosecutions?

It means someone has to actually place value on the .avi or .mp4 that you aren't distributing in mass, and then figure how much money you made from it. Of course, the charges against Granny for a torrent that exceeds over $30,000 didn't help the industry not look anymore greedy, even though she didn't know someone was leeching her WiFi and bandwidth and was downloading all kinds of files that were already on the internet to begin with.

Already on the internet to begin with...

Somehow, this is more valuable than health care?

This is what he meant by "gray area"? Are you sure? Because it looks like you are confusing criminal copyright infringement with the innocent versus willful civil infringement cutoff for statutory damages. I think you are trying to say that there are valuation issues in civil copyright infringement cases and/or criminal copyright issues, is that right?

I think what you're trying to accomplish is criminalizing file sharers like they were drug users. For a die hard liberal kook like yourself, that really works out, doesn't it?

BTW, I posted this once already:

SOPA.

That's what you want, right?

I am totally against SOPA.

Why is that so? It stands for Stop Online Piracy Act.

Lots of laws have silly names.

That isn't an answer.

 

[Amused to Death]

I found this:

Audio Home Recording Act

Several countries, including the US, permit consumers to make copies of copyright protected sound recordings. The reproduction is permitted so long as the copy is made for the consumer’s personal, noncommercial use and is made from a legally obtained sound recording (i.e., the consumer making the copy has purchased the sound recording he/she is copying.) These laws also include requirements that the manufacturers of the media, and/or the recording equipment, pay royalties that are then used to compensate featured recording artists and sound recording copyright owners for the lost sales resulting from this reproduction of their sound recordings.

 

[Todd Andrews]

Exactly my point. No here would think twice about sharing and ripping music for family, but as soon you introduce torrents it becomes taboo. Can't have it both ways.


Like others have said, its ALL stealing copyright infringement . Can't get high and mighty though (like the OP) if it occurs with torrents.

Would it change your analysis if ripping and sharing your music for your family were legal?

Not trying to be argumentative, but the quick search I did on <whatever it was you referred to> only seemed to make it legal to make your own digital copies. I didn't see where it said you could buy a disc and distribute it to your friends and family. Can you post what your referring to?

And no, it wouldn't change my opinion that there isn't much difference between someone using bittorrent to get a disc and obtaining the same thing from a relative. Either way, I'm getting the disc for free.

Well, for example, you keep referencing and creating hypos like sharing your music with your wife or family as if they were illegal, while the law allows you to make a million or a billion copies of your music as long as it is for personal use, which would obviously include your wife and immediate family in your household. If you buy a cd of music, you can make as many digital copies (or even copies in other mediums if you feel like putting it on 8 track) of it as you want for personal/household use (or car or ipod, etc.). Giving copies to your friends is illegal distribution of unauthorized copies, though.

 

[drummer]

I found this:

Audio Home Recording Act

Several countries, including the US, permit consumers to make copies of copyright protected sound recordings. The reproduction is permitted so long as the copy is made for the consumer’s personal, noncommercial use and is made from a legally obtained sound recording (i.e., the consumer making the copy has purchased the sound recording he/she is copying.) These laws also include requirements that the manufacturers of the media, and/or the recording equipment, pay royalties that are then used to compensate featured recording artists and sound recording copyright owners for the lost sales resulting from this reproduction of their sound recordings.

If they wanted to really stop the distribution of media, then why don't they ban recording equipment for the consumer?

 

[Amused to Death]

Exactly my point. No here would think twice about sharing and ripping music for family, but as soon you introduce torrents it becomes taboo. Can't have it both ways.


Like others have said, its ALL stealing copyright infringement . Can't get high and mighty though (like the OP) if it occurs with torrents.

Would it change your analysis if ripping and sharing your music for your family were legal?

Not trying to be argumentative, but the quick search I did on <whatever it was you referred to> only seemed to make it legal to make your own digital copies. I didn't see where it said you could buy a disc and distribute it to your friends and family. Can you post what your referring to?

And no, it wouldn't change my opinion that there isn't much difference between someone using bittorrent to get a disc and obtaining the same thing from a relative. Either way, I'm getting the disc for free.

Well, for example, you keep referencing and creating hypos like sharing your music with your wife or family as if they were illegal, while the law allows you to make a million or a billion copies of your music as long as it is for personal use, which would obviously include your wife and immediate family in your household. If you buy a cd of music, you can make as many digital copies (or even copies in other mediums if you feel like putting it on 8 track) of it as you want for personal/household use (or car or ipod, etc.). Giving copies to your friends is illegal distribution of unauthorized copies, though.

That sounds contrary to "The reproduction is permitted so long as the copy is made for the consumer’s personal, noncommercial use and is made from a legally obtained sound recording"

 

[Amused to Death]

I found this:

Audio Home Recording Act

Several countries, including the US, permit consumers to make copies of copyright protected sound recordings. The reproduction is permitted so long as the copy is made for the consumer’s personal, noncommercial use and is made from a legally obtained sound recording (i.e., the consumer making the copy has purchased the sound recording he/she is copying.) These laws also include requirements that the manufacturers of the media, and/or the recording equipment, pay royalties that are then used to compensate featured recording artists and sound recording copyright owners for the lost sales resulting from this reproduction of their sound recordings.

If they wanted to really stop the distribution of media, then why don't they ban recording equipment for the consumer?

Or make rippers illegal.

 

[drummer]

I found this:

Audio Home Recording Act

Several countries, including the US, permit consumers to make copies of copyright protected sound recordings. The reproduction is permitted so long as the copy is made for the consumer’s personal, noncommercial use and is made from a legally obtained sound recording (i.e., the consumer making the copy has purchased the sound recording he/she is copying.) These laws also include requirements that the manufacturers of the media, and/or the recording equipment, pay royalties that are then used to compensate featured recording artists and sound recording copyright owners for the lost sales resulting from this reproduction of their sound recordings.

If they wanted to really stop the distribution of media, then why don't they ban recording equipment for the consumer?

Or make rippers illegal.

Remember Macrovision? How many VHS tapes were encoded with that? Not many IIRC.

ETA: they should had banned blank media as well.

 

[Amused to Death]

Well, for example, you keep referencing and creating hypos like sharing your music with your wife or family as if they were illegal, while the law allows you to make a million or a billion copies of your music as long as it is for personal use, which would obviously include your wife and immediate family in your household. If you buy a cd of music, you can make as many digital copies (or even copies in other mediums if you feel like putting it on 8 track) of it as you want for personal/household use (or car or ipod, etc.). Giving copies to your friends is illegal distribution of unauthorized copies, though.

I guess you're right if "personal" use extends to people under my roof. Does it stop there? Can I give it to my family in another state? We *used* to all live under one roof.

 

[Todd Andrews]

Well, for example, you keep referencing and creating hypos like sharing your music with your wife or family as if they were illegal, while the law allows you to make a million or a billion copies of your music as long as it is for personal use, which would obviously include your wife and immediate family in your household. If you buy a cd of music, you can make as many digital copies (or even copies in other mediums if you feel like putting it on 8 track) of it as you want for personal/household use (or car or ipod, etc.). Giving copies to your friends is illegal distribution of unauthorized copies, though.

I guess you're right if "personal" use extends to people under my roof. Does it stop there? Can I give it to my family in another state? We *used* to all live under one roof.

Well, we are all descended from Adam and Eve, right, so I guess all content should be free, like a little birdie, fly away!

Look, I realize that it is easy for you to get anything you want. That doesnt mean it isnt illegal or causing massive economic damage to the industries whose work product you are enjoying (whether or not you approve of their arguably antiquated business models or not). I am not telling you to stop, just admit you are a naughty sinner.

 

[drummer]

Well, for example, you keep referencing and creating hypos like sharing your music with your wife or family as if they were illegal, while the law allows you to make a million or a billion copies of your music as long as it is for personal use, which would obviously include your wife and immediate family in your household. If you buy a cd of music, you can make as many digital copies (or even copies in other mediums if you feel like putting it on 8 track) of it as you want for personal/household use (or car or ipod, etc.). Giving copies to your friends is illegal distribution of unauthorized copies, though.

I guess you're right if "personal" use extends to people under my roof. Does it stop there? Can I give it to my family in another state? We *used* to all live under one roof.

Well, we are all descended from Adam and Eve, right, so I guess all content should be free, like a little birdie, fly away!

Look, I realize that it is easy for you to get anything you want. That doesnt mean it isnt illegal or causing massive economic damage to the industries whose work product you are enjoying (whether or not you approve of their arguably antiquated business models or not). I am not telling you to stop, just admit you are a naughty sinner.

Hollywood's problem is that they didn't innovate in the marketplace. It actually costs them more to break the old model. This is where technology forces them to innovate. If they don't, then that's their problem.

 

[Todd Andrews]

Well, I agree with you they were and are very dumb about how they are innovating. What does that have to do with you stealing the fruit of their labors?

 

[drummer]

Well, I agree with you they were and are very dumb about how they are innovating. What does that have to do with you stealing the fruit of their labors?

It has more to do with the technology and their resistance to it. So they go out and try to kill parts of it because they refuse to innovate.

Now, they are subject to delivery systems that are controlled by others within the digital pipeline.

As far as stealing: Otis should sue you for stealing his schtick.

 

[Otis]

A lot of conversations seem to go like this:

Q. Is illegally downloading a movie stealing?

A. No.

Q. So you don't think it's wrong to download movies?

I don't think anyone is going to that second question. We're trying to focus on the first. Some guy is running around posting Supreme Court decisions on copyright infringement and criminal statutes as evidence in his mind that it's not stealing. The problem is that the term "stealing" is a lot more broad than just what is in a single statute, and in fact was around before we enacted all these laws. It's that generic, old, "we know it when we see it" concept of stealing I've been trying to focus on -- some kind of unpermitted taking of something from someone else.

I'm not passing judgement on whether it's wrong. I'm stopping short at the first question. To reframe your analysis below, it's more like:

Q. Is illegally downloading a movie stealing?

A. No.

Q. Seriously?

A. Yeah, seriously, because (1) "Hollywood" screws people all the time, and (2) I wasn't gonna watch it anyway, and (3) I don't mind taking from rich people, and (4) it's not going to make a difference, they'll never notice it since they make so much money off it anyway, and (5) if they really wanted to prevent me from stealing it they could, but they don't bother to implement the technology so it's probably OK with them, and so on...

Q. So wait, what does any of that have to do with whether or not it's stealing?

A. STOP JUDGING ME, MORALITY POLICE.




For all these guys know I have a massive torrent collection of music and movies at home.

 

[Scoresman]

A lot of conversations seem to go like this:

Q. Is illegally downloading a movie stealing?

A. No.

Q. So you don't think it's wrong to download movies?

I don't think anyone is going to that second question. We're trying to focus on the first. Some guy is running around posting Supreme Court decisions on copyright infringement and criminal statutes as evidence in his mind that it's not stealing. The problem is that the term "stealing" is a lot more broad than just what is in a single statute, and in fact was around before we enacted all these laws. It's that generic, old, "we know it when we see it" concept of stealing I've been trying to focus on -- some kind of unpermitted taking of something from someone else.

I'm not passing judgement on whether it's wrong. I'm stopping short at the first question. To reframe your analysis below, it's more like:

Q. Is illegally downloading a movie stealing?

A. No.

Q. Seriously?

A. Yeah, seriously, because (1) "Hollywood" screws people all the time, and (2) I wasn't gonna watch it anyway, and (3) I don't mind taking from rich people, and (4) it's not going to make a difference, they'll never notice it since they make so much money off it anyway, and (5) if they really wanted to prevent me from stealing it they could, but they don't bother to implement the technology so it's probably OK with them, and so on...

Q. So wait, what does any of that have to do with whether or not it's stealing?

A. STOP JUDGING ME, MORALITY POLICE.




For all these guys know I have a massive torrent collection of music and movies at home.

your reading comprehension is poor.

 

[drummer]

What people don't understand that most digital media is disposable. These aren't old tape and optical mediums. I can delete a file as fast as I can obtain it. Hardly much value in a digital file because it really isn't a tangible item.

 

[Todd Andrews]

What people don't understand that most digital media is disposable. These aren't old tape and optical mediums. I can delete a file as fast as I can obtain it. Hardly much value in a digital file because it really isn't a tangible item.

Who doesnt understand that? The issue isnt the value of the copy, but the lost revenue to the creator/author of the work who has a monopoly under our law on exploitation of their work. You have the practical ability to circumvent that monopoly based upon current technology but it doesnt change the fact that you are taking potential money from the creator/author regardless of whether your sole copy or any single tangible copy has any or more or less value, whether it is disposable or not, or whether you keep it or not. And please spare me the "I wouldnt have bought it anyway" or "I buy lots of stuff after I steal them" arguments.

You are completely ignoring or just dont care about the purpose and spirit of copyright law. Which is fine. But it is our law.

 

[Chaka]

I would like to hear more about these evil bastards of this "Hollywood" conglomerate.

I would like to hear ways that I can do to financial companies like Goldman Sachs what torrent nerds are doing to Hollywood.

 

[Chaos Commish]

Who cares if I shoplift food? Once I consume it it's worthless and disposable.

 

[Todd Andrews]

I would like to hear more about these evil bastards of this "Hollywood" conglomerate.

I would like to hear ways that I can do to financial companies like Goldman Sachs what torrent nerds are doing to Hollywood.

I am with you there, only you would really go to jail if you stole from them.

 

[Chaka]

I would like to hear more about these evil bastards of this "Hollywood" conglomerate.

I would like to hear ways that I can do to financial companies like Goldman Sachs what torrent nerds are doing to Hollywood.

I am with you there, only you would really go to jail if you stole from them.

Yet none of them went to jail for collapsing our economy while still making a fortune for themselves.

 

[drummer]

What people don't understand that most digital media is disposable. These aren't old tape and optical mediums. I can delete a file as fast as I can obtain it. Hardly much value in a digital file because it really isn't a tangible item.

Who doesnt understand that? The issue isnt the value of the copy, but the lost revenue to the creator/author of the work who has a monopoly under our law on exploitation of their work. You have the practical ability to circumvent that monopoly based upon current technology but it doesnt change the fact that you are taking potential money from the creator/author regardless of whether your sole copy or any single tangible copy has any or more or less value, whether it is disposable or not, or whether you keep it or not. And please spare me the "I wouldnt have bought it anyway" or "I buy lots of stuff after I steal them" arguments.

You are completely ignoring or just dont care about the purpose and spirit of copyright law. Which is fine. But it is our law.

I'm sure a .avi file of Up In Smoke has cost Tommy Chong lost revenue, even though that movie has made it's $$$ a thousand times over since release before the internet. Even after it was copied onto VHS off of the early days of cable TV.

What's good about digital: it doesn't degrade after multiple copies, like your old tape of a John Holmes pron movie you got from a college buddy.

 

[drummer]

I would like to hear more about these evil bastards of this "Hollywood" conglomerate.

I would like to hear ways that I can do to financial companies like Goldman Sachs what torrent nerds are doing to Hollywood.

I am with you there, only you would really go to jail if you stole from them.

Yet none of them went to jail for collapsing our economy while still making a fortune for themselves.

 

[Todd Andrews]

I would like to hear more about these evil bastards of this "Hollywood" conglomerate.

I would like to hear ways that I can do to financial companies like Goldman Sachs what torrent nerds are doing to Hollywood.

I am with you there, only you would really go to jail if you stole from them.

Yet none of them went to jail for collapsing our economy while still making a fortune for themselves.

Sad but true.

 

[drummer]

Who cares if I shoplift food? Once I consume it it's worthless and disposable.

That says a lot more about you than you want it to.

 

[Todd Andrews]

What people don't understand that most digital media is disposable. These aren't old tape and optical mediums. I can delete a file as fast as I can obtain it. Hardly much value in a digital file because it really isn't a tangible item.

Who doesnt understand that? The issue isnt the value of the copy, but the lost revenue to the creator/author of the work who has a monopoly under our law on exploitation of their work. You have the practical ability to circumvent that monopoly based upon current technology but it doesnt change the fact that you are taking potential money from the creator/author regardless of whether your sole copy or any single tangible copy has any or more or less value, whether it is disposable or not, or whether you keep it or not. And please spare me the "I wouldnt have bought it anyway" or "I buy lots of stuff after I steal them" arguments.

You are completely ignoring or just dont care about the purpose and spirit of copyright law. Which is fine. But it is our law.

I'm sure a .avi file of Up In Smoke has cost Tommy Chong lost revenue, even though that movie has made it's $$$ a thousand times over since release before the internet. Even after it was copied onto VHS off of the early days of cable TV.

What's good about digital: it doesn't degrade after multiple copies, like your old tape of a John Holmes pron movie you got from a college buddy.

It is his work. Why should you decide how it gets exploited, how it is distributed, whether he generates more or less revenue? If he wanted it in the public domain, he could easily inject it there. Instead, people like you devalue his work and essentially make it public domain property just because you can. If you dont like our laws, change them. Dont just violate them and then claim it is justified it because you dont like them, or who they benefit, or how they benefit them.

 

[drummer]

What people don't understand that most digital media is disposable. These aren't old tape and optical mediums. I can delete a file as fast as I can obtain it. Hardly much value in a digital file because it really isn't a tangible item.

Who doesnt understand that? The issue isnt the value of the copy, but the lost revenue to the creator/author of the work who has a monopoly under our law on exploitation of their work. You have the practical ability to circumvent that monopoly based upon current technology but it doesnt change the fact that you are taking potential money from the creator/author regardless of whether your sole copy or any single tangible copy has any or more or less value, whether it is disposable or not, or whether you keep it or not. And please spare me the "I wouldnt have bought it anyway" or "I buy lots of stuff after I steal them" arguments.

You are completely ignoring or just dont care about the purpose and spirit of copyright law. Which is fine. But it is our law.

I'm sure a .avi file of Up In Smoke has cost Tommy Chong lost revenue, even though that movie has made it's $$$ a thousand times over since release before the internet. Even after it was copied onto VHS off of the early days of cable TV.

What's good about digital: it doesn't degrade after multiple copies, like your old tape of a John Holmes pron movie you got from a college buddy.

It is his work. Why should you decide how it gets exploited, how it is distributed, whether he generates more or less revenue? If he wanted it in the public domain, he could easily inject it there. Instead, people like you devalue his work and essentially make it public domain property just because you can. If you dont like our laws, change them. Dont just violate them and then claim it is justified it because you dont like them, or who they benefit, or how they benefit them.

I already added to his revenue by paying to go see the movie several times, and renting it on VHS. I can also watch it on Netflix. I subscribed to cable as well.

So there is that.

 

[drummer]

BTW, should a person pay Hollywood for having a DVD party with several friends invited over? That might fall under illegal distribution.

 

[jdoggydogg]

Hardly much value in a digital file because it really isn't a tangible item.

I'd argue it's more valuable, not less. If I have a film on a flaswh drive, I can play it on my computer, my PlayStation, I can add the file to my phone, and I can e-mail it to anyone. Not true with a DVD.

 

[Scoresman]

BTW, should a person pay Hollywood for having a DVD party with several friends invited over? That might fall under illegal distribution.

anyone who does this isa filthy thief.