Copyright

[Xanex]

Im not in th USA, im UK but from what I have read and heard some parts of the US constitution seem to protect you the person, but in fact open the can of worms to the government to own you if they so wish.

If read carefully, the average US citizen actaully has little of their own rights that cant be overturned or blocked by some ammendment or courtcase.

This website was quite a intersting read, dunno how much of it is true though.

http://www.gemworld.com/USAvsUS.htm

( I particualy like the bit about your children not being your own)

But this post is aobut copyright anyway....

Quote: From RIAA website
"The Congress shall have Power . . . To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries ."

(/offpostTopic what makes me laugh is that most american companys believe that they can succesfully sue a person even tho they are not in the country, haha, INFO: USA law is just that, USA ONLY. unless some international law comes about then nothing can be done, even then the law only applies to those countrys that are part of that international union.)

Basically copyright is that you own the rights to anything that you yourself have made, to prevent other people from stealing your ideas and claiming them as your own. The origenal Copyright has nothing to do with ripping a song to your pc thou it holds for most things.

EG Dyson the vaccum cleaner guy , he has to copyright his designs so people dont use them in their machines.

Though if you read it carefully, it says for a limited time. This opens the doors for the copyright protectors to charge you countless sums of money to keep your idea your idea.

Gone where the days where if you have the deed to your house then its your house, and if someone has your deed, by law its their house, though you would like to try and proove that it is your house and thus we move to todays "ownership" standards.

(Now im not bashing the usa constitution, nor do i wish a flame war, tho i feel that some heavy patriots will take offense to what i say because im challenging their beliefs, and because of their Quote: sheer bloody mindedness in thinking that the USA is the center of the world, -excerpt from some post i cant find right now.)
But if people use their brains and not believe the things that they have been spoon fed over the decades then they will see the truth.)

Now copyright has taken on another form being that it now is supposed to protect the owners money, since each song cost money each copy is vital, they are all like scrooges hording their copys of songs. So if u copy a song you are stealing from the owner (haha). It reminds me of my mum, she goes shopping and its sale day, she buys somthing that is reduced, comes home and says "look how much i saved, i reply "u aint saved nothing, uve spent that money actaully"

Just some random BS that popped into my head right now,

Xanex

[Jibbler]

Interesting opinion, I especially liked the reference to your mom. :D ;)

[Xanex]

EDIT: typo

Yea mums can be like that sometimes.

Its like go figure

[aNiZeGuy]

lol i never read that shit


besdies u think the police r gonna come torugh ur door , take ur computer away an dbe arrested :lol: :lol: :lol:

[will233]

:ph34r: ....................copyrigth laws are a big joke.........no one can or will enforce them................its all just talk............

[TIDE-HSV]

No, the copywright laws are not a joke. They're just looking for a proper "handle" to enforce them. For decades the RIAA has employed people to tour the countryside, even into small lounges and the like. When they hear a protected song, they log the performance and the performer. They may attend several nights in a row. They return to home base and the owner of the lounge gets a letter. He's given the choice of paying the royalty per song (prohibitively expensive) or paying an annual fee. When my brother passed away, I inherited the responsibility of running his lounge for a couple of years, so I know what I'm talking about. Their problem is that they haven't found a way to move this model for collection into the cyber age. We're too slippery, so far. But they will keep trying. I think it's a mistake to call them a "joke." Those who don't think the heat's going to be turned up in this area, at least in the states, are, at best, naive.

[Jibbler]

Originally posted by TIDE-HSV@20 April 2003 - 18:03
They may attend several nights in a row. They return to home base and the owner of the lounge gets a letter. He's given the choice of paying the royalty per song (prohibitively expensive) or paying an annual fee.
Apples to Oranges my friend. Performing a song, in front of a croud, for profit, is different than sharing a file over the internet. No one is profiting from the filesharing here.

[J'Pol]

Originally posted by Jibbler+21 April 2003 - 00:11--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Jibbler @ 21 April 2003 - 00:11)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin--TIDE-HSV@20 April 2003 - 18:03
They may attend several nights in a row.&nbsp; They return to home base and the owner of the lounge gets a letter.&nbsp; He&#39;s given the choice of paying the royalty per song (prohibitively expensive) or paying an annual fee.
Apples to Oranges my friend. Performing a song, in front of a croud, for profit, is different than sharing a file over the internet. No one is profiting from the filesharing here. [/b][/quote]
Specious, at best.

[TIDE-HSV]

There is no "for profit" parameter built into our copywright law - nor any other country I know of.

[Jibbler]

Yes, well, you wouldn&#39;t need to copyright something unless it were for profit now would you? If it were publically available, then it would not need a copyright. For all you non believers, this quote is from websters.com, from their definition of a copyright.


Use of copyright to restrict redistribution is actually
immoral, unethical, and illegitimate. It is a result of
brainwashing by monopolists and corporate interests and it
violates everyone&#39;s rights. Copyrights and patents hamper
technological progress by making a naturally abundant resource
scarce. Many, from communists to right wing libertarians, are
trying to abolish intellectual property myths.

The entire article can be found here. (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=copyright)

Websters Dictionaries have been in print for over 100 years. Care to find me an older source which would be more reliable? :o :o :o

[TIDE-HSV]

The barriers to free sharing are practical, practical, but - in the end - insuperable. Not legal at all. Continue to tilt at windmills, if you will (and I can tell you will), but filesharing, as it is practiced, is clearly in violation of our present statutes (which I hope will be changed). So, you&#39;ve resorted to Webster. Well, I will have been practicing law forty years next month, but I guess your Webster&#39;s still got sixty years on me. :lol:

[J'Pol]

Never confuse the law with common sense, or natural justice.

Never take the normal meaning of a word (or phrase) to mean the same in legal terms.

The law stands alone and is dependant on the debate which made it. Not just the words as written down.

In the UK we call the written record of the debate the Hansard Notes (or something similar, I just can&#39;t remember).

The point is that the law is not just the words. It is the intention of the legislators as they debated the point.

[J'Pol]

The last person who made a reasonable attempt at "tilting at windmills" was Don Quixote.

So much so that it has become an accepted phrase for, what we call, pissing in the wind.

[Jibbler]

Please don&#39;t misunderstand me. I&#39;m not trying to use Websters as the authoritive source for making my case. However, the idea behind intellectual property and copyrights was put on the books years ago, long before anyone imagined internet or digital technology. The laws antiquated, and need to be rewritten. Trying to mold the ideas from 40 years ago to the technology of today is absurd. :huh: :huh:

[TIDE-HSV]

The DMCA was passed in 1998 and it&#39;s the law of the land, like it or not. (I, for one, think it&#39;s hideous). I do agree that the application of the original ideas of protection of intellectual property to the cyber world is ridiculous. However, to return to my original point, it will collapse of its own logistical weight - not from legal attacks, IMO. If they stop Kazaa, then there will be a successor - and they know it. Were I on their side of the issue, I could think of many other approaches I would take in preference to their "hard-line" tack. However, they&#39;ve taken the approach they&#39;ve taken, and we will have to take them seriously and evade them as best we can. It will be an interesting tussle. :angry:

[Jibbler]

Yes, well, the DMCA is questionable at best. I continue to do research into this, but I don&#39;t see this going anywhere. There is such a fine line in all of this. If I go to a live concert, I have paid for admission, so why can&#39;t I bring in a video camera and record the concert? Assuming of course, that I&#39;m only going to use it for personal use, how does this violate any laws?

In 9 days i&#39;m going to see Pearl Jam live in concert. I believe in play for pay and I still support the bands. This loose interpretation of the law is bullshit. Will they make me sign a paper at the door that I will not distribute or copy the concert in any way? How about the next time that you go to a movie? Are you going to sign the same paper there?

You cannot licence a performance. Common sense tells us this. :blink:

I think I&#39;m going to copyright all of my posts, so that no one here can "quote" me without my expressed written permission. :lol: :lol: :lol:

[clocker]

Originally posted by Jibbler@20 April 2003 - 18:26
Trying to mold the ideas from 40 years ago to the technology of today is absurd. :huh: :huh:
I presume that this is also true of such antiquated ideas as, say, the Ten Commandments and, oh, the U.S. Constitution?

[Jibbler]

Originally posted by clocker+20 April 2003 - 20:23--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (clocker @ 20 April 2003 - 20:23)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin--Jibbler@20 April 2003 - 18:26
Trying to mold the ideas from 40 years ago to the technology of today is absurd. :huh:&nbsp; :huh:
I presume that this is also true of such antiquated ideas as, say, the Ten Commandments and, oh, the U.S. Constitution? [/b][/quote]
Oh the foolish, foolish man. Ten Commandments? Funny that you choose that one, as today is Easter Sunday. These aren&#39;t laws, but works of fiction which have been interpreted differently over the past 2000 years.

I do believe the Constitution is a set of Federal Laws, essentially a list of rights, guaranteed for every American, regardless of their local laws. I&#39;m sure the founding fathers had a civil government in mind when they created it, not movie/music piracy. The US Constitution is a good example. However I will point out, that there are Amendments to the Constitution, so this would be classified as a "work in progress", don&#39;t you think? :huh: :huh:

[clocker]

Originally posted by Jibbler+20 April 2003 - 19:59--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Jibbler @ 20 April 2003 - 19:59)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>
Originally posted by -clocker@20 April 2003 - 20:23
<!--QuoteBegin--Jibbler@20 April 2003 - 18:26
Trying to mold the ideas from 40 years ago to the technology of today is absurd. :huh: :huh:
I presume that this is also true of such antiquated ideas as, say, the Ten Commandments and, oh, the U.S. Constitution?
Oh the foolish, foolish man. Ten Commandments? Funny that you choose that one, as today is Easter Sunday. These aren&#39;t laws, but works of fiction which have been interpreted differently over the past 2000 years.

The US Constitution is a good example. However I will point out, that there are Amendments to the Constitution, so this would be classified as a "work in progress", don&#39;t you think? :huh: :huh: [/b][/quote]
I believe that if you take A VERY CAREFUL look at your original post even you will agree that you said "the ideas of forty years ago".
My use of the Ten Commandments was not intended to be funny or unintentional. I think it is an excellent example of how ideas can maintain relevance in our technological age.

Simply being old ( be it an idea, a law or a man ) is hardly reason to consider something obsolete. Laws, in particular, evolve constantly to maintain relevance with current conditions. We are certainly not the first generation to feel the discomfort of evolving technology, I&#39;m sure that the invention of the wheel screwed up somebody&#39;s way of life too.

[Jibbler]

Originally posted by clocker@20 April 2003 - 21:14
Laws, in particular, evolve constantly to maintain relevance with current conditions. We are certainly not the first generation to feel the discomfort of evolving technology, I&#39;m sure that the invention of the wheel screwed up somebody&#39;s way of life too.
Interesting approach, I wonder how people in the 50s dealt with television, etc. Anyone care to spin me a time machine, so I can learn the ways of the free thinking world of yester-year? All kidding aside, I wonder if people worried about the negative aspects of technology in those days. Good point Clocker. B)

[clocker]

Originally posted by Jibbler@20 April 2003 - 20:18
All kidding aside, I wonder if people worried about the negative aspects of technology in those days. Good point Clocker. B)
Of course they did.
There has ALWAYS been someone who was heavily invested in maintaining the status quo.

[TIDE-HSV]

High-tech Luddites. :lol:

[clocker]

Originally posted by TIDE-HSV@20 April 2003 - 21:04
High-tech Luddites. :lol:
Could you come up with another catchy phrase like this one?

I&#39;m looking for another member title.

[TIDE-HSV]

I thought I remembered you liked that one. I&#39;ll give it some thought. :)

[clocker]

Originally posted by TIDE-HSV@20 April 2003 - 21:29
I thought I remembered you liked that one. I&#39;ll give it some thought. :)
I liked it a lot, but j2k4 stole it before I could.

Just shows we&#39;re all pirates, eh?

[TIDE-HSV]

At the core, yes. :lol:

[WebCheF]

There is no law with a copy of protected media, just law to prohibit the use of it for a profit, such as entertainment at a club, dj&#39;s, bands, distributers, and publicly displaying the content for a fee.

Not to share, but you can&#39;t share media that has not been released. such as movies, songs, and inteligence.

I mean we do have radio&#39;s and tv&#39;s that we can collect this from also, but it is not illegal. so long as there is no motive for profit.

[WebCheF]

Originally posted by Jibbler+21 April 2003 - 03:18--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Jibbler @ 21 April 2003 - 03:18)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin--clocker@20 April 2003 - 21:14
Laws, in particular, evolve constantly to maintain relevance with&nbsp; current conditions. We are certainly not the first generation to feel the discomfort of evolving technology, I&#39;m sure that the invention of the wheel screwed up somebody&#39;s way of life too.
Interesting approach, I wonder how people in the 50s dealt with television, etc. Anyone care to spin me a time machine, so I can learn the ways of the free thinking world of yester-year? All kidding aside, I wonder if people worried about the negative aspects of technology in those days. Good point Clocker. B) [/b][/quote]
Look at Elvils&#39; Estate, based on copyright laws that were present in the 50&#39;s.

Henry ford, Agusta Escofier, both great enteprenuers but one has shared his work for the industy, the other has copyrighted and patented almost every aspect of his invention. But I guess they are apples and oranges.

Sorry bout that, I guess I was bableing. LOL

Getting some sleep now,

[clocker]

Originally posted by WebCheF@20 April 2003 - 22:00
There is no law with a copy of protected media, just law to prohibit the use of it for a profit, such as entertainment at a club, dj&#39;s, bands, distributers, and publicly displaying the content for a fee.

Not to share, but you can&#39;t share media that has not been released. such as movies, songs, and inteligence.

I mean we do have radio&#39;s and tv&#39;s that we can collect this from also, but it is not illegal. so long as there is no motive for profit.
What you call "sharing" the RIAA considers "distribution".

Their livelihood depends on controlling the distribution of their product and your profit ( or lack thereof) is completely irrelevant.
I think an apt example would be if you robbed a bank and then walked out into the street and threw the money at passersby. Simply because you didn&#39;t profit doesn&#39;t mean that you didn&#39;t commit a crime.
Can you display a legal hardcopy (CD, DVD,etc.) of every file in your Shared Folder? I know I can&#39;t. Hell, some of the stuff I have isn&#39;t even released yet&#33;
How could I make the argument with a straight face that my sharing of a movie that the company hasn&#39;t even released yet doesn&#39;t materially affect their livelihood? As Hobbes said elsewhere "I am a bad man."
I can&#39;t think of a morally/ legally defensible reason why I should be allowed to do this , so I just state that I do it BECAUSE I CAN&#33;
Maybe when I see Tom Cruise in line at the Goodwill I&#39;ll reconsider.

[WebCheF]

Originally posted by clocker+21 April 2003 - 05:30--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (clocker @ 21 April 2003 - 05:30)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin--WebCheF@20 April 2003 - 22:00
There is no law with a copy of protected media, just law to prohibit the use of it for a profit, such as entertainment at a club,&nbsp; dj&#39;s, bands, distributers, and publicly displaying the content for a fee.

Not to share, but you can&#39;t share media that has not been released. such as movies, songs, and inteligence.

I mean we do have radio&#39;s and tv&#39;s that we can collect this from also, but it is not illegal.&nbsp; so long as there is no motive for profit.
What you call "sharing" the RIAA considers "distribution".

Their livelihood depends on controlling the distribution of their product and your profit ( or lack thereof) is completely irrelevant.
I think an apt example would be if you robbed a bank and then walked out into the street and threw the money at passersby. Simply because you didn&#39;t profit doesn&#39;t mean that you didn&#39;t commit a crime.
Can you display a legal hardcopy (CD, DVD,etc.) of every file in your Shared Folder? I know I can&#39;t. Hell, some of the stuff I have isn&#39;t even released yet&#33;
How could I make the argument with a straight face that my sharing of a movie that the company hasn&#39;t even released yet doesn&#39;t materially affect their livelihood? As Hobbes said elsewhere "I am a bad man."
I can&#39;t think of a morally/ legally defensible reason why I should be allowed to do this , so I just state that I do it BECAUSE I CAN&#33;
Maybe when I see Tom Cruise in line at the Goodwill I&#39;ll reconsider. [/b][/quote]
Hey, I am not denying that is it wrong, but ? is it distrubution if I want to borrow your cd to play at my birthday party?

BTW, I am just enjoying the ride like the rest of the comunity, If I didn&#39;t get any music online I still wouldn&#39;t buy a cd that I would only like just one or two of the songs, but that&#39;s me.

lol I loose those damn things anyway.

[RealitY]

Apples to Oranges my friend. Performing a song, in front of a croud, for profit, is different than sharing a file over the internet. No one is profiting from the filesharing here. [/QUOTE]
I think their point is an intangible "loss profit".
Anyhow I think it is clear KaZaa has made millions.
Which always reminds me...
Free sells, and those who can sell free get rich.

[Jibbler]

Ah, but is "loss of projected revenue" really amount to anything? I mean, how can they put a price on an imagined profit?

If they could put a price on this "imaginary figure", there is no logical relation between filesharing and loss of profit. I&#39;ve had Linkin Park&#39;s new CD on my drive for quite some time. Yesterday, I bought the CD. Now they have my money. I&#39;m still trying to find out how sharing the files makes me responsible for their loss.

[clocker]

Originally posted by Jibbler@21 April 2003 - 17:39
Ah, but is "loss of projected revenue" really amount to anything? I mean, how can they put a price on an imagined profit?

If they could put a price on this "imaginary figure", there is no logical relation between filesharing and loss of profit. I&#39;ve had Linkin Park&#39;s new CD on my drive for quite some time. Yesterday, I bought the CD. Now they have my money. I&#39;m still trying to find out how sharing the files makes me responsible for their loss.
"Loss of projected revenue" will amount to whatever they can convince a jury to give them.

Bully for you. YOU bought the Linkin Park CD. Can you say the same for the hundreds(?) of people that you allowed to dl it from your harddrive?
I thought not.

[Jibbler]

That&#39;s a good question Clocker, and that&#39;s my point. There is no way to determine if the people who download and share files are actually purchasing any less than they did before.

More importantly, I have the songs, no CD case, no liner notes, no lyrics, no parental advisary. I guess you could say that when I share the files, I&#39;m sharing a "barebones" version of the CD. Naturally, if I could walk into Record Town and purchase just the disk, nothing else, then they would sell it for cheaper right? Doubt it. :huh: :huh:

[SolidWing68]

Its not really a loss unless the store keeps some record of who purchases what, and when..

[clocker]

Originally posted by Jibbler@21 April 2003 - 17:58
That&#39;s a good question Clocker, and that&#39;s my point. There is no way to determine if the people who download and share files are actually purchasing any less than they did before.
Of course there is&#33;

Industry sales records show a 20 something% drop in sales in the last two years.
You/we give their product away&#33;

A first year law student would have us breaking rocks in Sing Sing in about a half an hour&#33;

[Xanex]

Originally posted by WebCheF@21 April 2003 - 05:00
There is no law with a copy of protected media, just law to prohibit the use of it for a profit, such as entertainment at a club,&nbsp; dj&#39;s, bands, distributers, and publicly displaying the content for a fee.

Not to share, but you can&#39;t share media that has not been released. such as movies, songs, and inteligence.

I mean we do have radio&#39;s and tv&#39;s that we can collect this from also, but it is not illegal.&nbsp; so long as there is no motive for profit.
wow i never thought i would get this much response, it was just a piece of crap that entered my head and made me think so i thought i would write it down.

But the difinitive thing with a ripped song is money.

You are allowed believe it or not to make a working back up copy of anything like tape/vhs/dvd/mp3 etc etc as long as 1) you own the origenal and 2) if the origenal is lost/stolen/sold/broken?? (not sure since that was the point in some cases of making th bakup so the origenal was safe) and if it is then you are to destroy the back up copy forthwit.

You are only alowed to make 1 working back up copy, count it one&#33;

so if you have 1000+ mp3s and someone downloads them, YOU are technically making a copy for them and sending it to them. and if u dl a song u are making a copy of a song/file wotever that you dont own, so ergo copyright theft, there is no denying it and that is fact, we on this board all do it.

hence you are breaking the one copy rule&#33;

money: if u dl a song from a band, you might only like that one song, so some argue wots the point of buying the whole ablum for one song. i like the offspring and i brought one of their albums for one song and ended up liking the whole lot. so those who dl the whole album are potentially taking the money from the artist that they would be getting for the said ablum u would have brought.

in excess this origenally was about the interpritation of the US constitution in how its worded to allow corporate companys to charge rediculouse fees to maintain the artists songs/ideas

take the case of courtny love and nirvanas songs, she owns the copyright on countless un released nirvana songs that the band wrote, not just kurt, so they are not allowed to release these songs because she is freezing the copyright and prohibiting the songs release

Xanex

[J'Pol]

Originally posted by Xanex@22 April 2003 - 18:15
You are allowed believe it or not to make a working back up copy of anything like tape/vhs/dvd/mp3 etc etc as long as 1) you own the origenal and 2) if the origenal is lost/stolen/sold/broken?? (not sure since that was the point in some cases of making th bakup so the origenal was safe) and if it is then you are to destroy the back up copy forthwit.

You are only alowed to make 1 working back up copy, count it one&#33;

For clarification. This is not the case in the UK, though many people think it is.

[clocker]

JmiF, your new makeover and ubercalm demeanor are vaguely unsettling.
You haven&#39;t been channeling Charles Whitman lately, have you?

[J'Pol]

Originally posted by clocker@22 April 2003 - 21:19
JmiF, your new makeover and ubercalm demeanor are vaguely unsettling.
You haven&#39;t been channeling Charles Whitman lately, have you?
Are you suggesting that in the dim and distant past I sniped at people.

Fraid not mate. Just a serious warning from a mod about some of the posts. Didn&#39;t want a ban so basically have to temper the behaviour.

[Xanex]

Originally posted by JmiF+22 April 2003 - 18:40--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (JmiF @ 22 April 2003 - 18:40)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin--Xanex@22 April 2003 - 18:15
You are allowed believe it or not to make a working back up copy of anything like tape/vhs/dvd/mp3 etc etc as long as 1) you own the origenal and 2) if the origenal is lost/stolen/sold/broken?? (not sure since that was the point in some cases of making th bakup so the origenal was safe) and if it is then you are to destroy the back up copy forthwit.

You are only alowed to make 1 working back up copy, count it one&#33;

For clarification. This is not the case in the UK, though many people think it is. [/b][/quote]
I have yet to see any court case about mp3 stuff etc etc so either they are not enforcing it or they cant yet

[Schmiggy_JK23]

Originally posted by Jibbler@20 April 2003 - 20:22
I think I&#39;m going to copyright all of my posts, so that no one here can "quote" me without my expressed written permission. :lol: :lol: :lol:
LMAO&#33; Jibbler, you are my hero. lol.


Oh shit... what kind of royalties do i owe for that?

[Schmiggy_JK23]

Originally posted by WebCheF@20 April 2003 - 23:00
There is no law with a copy of protected media, just law to prohibit the use of it for a profit, such as entertainment at a club,&nbsp; dj&#39;s, bands, distributers, and publicly displaying the content for a fee.

Not to share, but you can&#39;t share media that has not been released. such as movies, songs, and inteligence.

I mean we do have radio&#39;s and tv&#39;s that we can collect this from also, but it is not illegal.&nbsp; so long as there is no motive for profit.
No your wrong. Read this... DMCA and DVD info (http://www.protectfairuse.org/policymakers/policy_solutions.html)

The DMCA, prevents the copying, or in essence, the thwarting of any digital encryption, etc, in any form.

You cannot, at this time... legal copy your own DVD&#39;s that you have purchased, or make back up cds, of cds that have encryption... its illegal to cirumvent it on software also.

This of course leads to the debate of "fair use", which the supreme court entitled years ago. Which of course, is the biggest reason to overturn, or modify the DMCA....

xanex... that also aplies to your so called rule of one... which, if its encrypted... gets thrown out the window, and is the rule of none... :D

sucks dont it...

[Schmiggy_JK23]

Originally posted by Xanex@22 April 2003 - 12:15
take the case of courtny love and nirvanas songs, she owns the copyright on countless un released nirvana songs that the band wrote, not just kurt, so they are not allowed to release these songs because she is freezing the copyright and prohibiting the songs release

Xanex
This is also wrong.

The problem with the "unreleased nirvana" tracks, was merely a power struggle. She didnt own shit. She merely inherited kurts so called "vote", as nirvana was run as a democracy, 3 members, 3 votes, on such issues. The band, whats left of it, dave and the other guy, voted obviously, and wanted the unreleased stuff out. Courtney only having one vote, and not wanting the songs out, as it was rumored she wanted to leverage them in a new record deal for hole, took them to court, saying kurt always said to her that he was the propriatary figure in nirvana, etc, etc, and that he was going to leave the band, etc, etc, therefore she should get sole rights to the unreleased material. However, her and the band, came to some mutual arrangement, in the wanning hours of the case, and worked it out.

btw, i still think she put a hit out on him, but thats an entire new thread.

[Schmiggy_JK23]

Originally posted by clocker@21 April 2003 - 19:22
Of course there is&#33;

Industry sales records show a 20 something% drop in sales in the last two years.
You/we give their product away&#33;

A first year law student would have us breaking rocks in Sing Sing in about a half an hour&#33;
Are you so sure? Maybe you should talk to a economics major before that...

any ways... listen...

1. The economy is in a decline, thus, there is less disposable income for such things.
2. The DVD/movie industry is booming... dvds only taking off in the past few years... wow, crazy... right around the time that music sales started taking a shit.
3. The video game market is also booming... console sales, pc game sales, software sales are skyrocketing. GTA3 any one? PS2 any one? Zelda?
4. Its fairly common knowledge that people dont feel cds are worth thier entertainment value/price per buck.

this all leads to people spending less on things in general, less on music, more on what they feel is the better "bang for their buck"...

Im not doubting that cd sales drop somewhat because of piracy... but its not the main reason... dont buy into the RIAA&#39;s sad song. Other countries have had rises in sales, some staying even. People are spending their entertainment dollar elsewhere, and its pissing the RIAA off... they cant sue the MPAA for their drop in sales... but they can try to get us... so they do....

[Xanex]

Originally posted by Schmiggy_JK23+23 April 2003 - 12:50--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Schmiggy_JK23 @ 23 April 2003 - 12:50)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin--WebCheF@20 April 2003 - 23:00
There is no law with a copy of protected media, just law to prohibit the use of it for a profit, such as entertainment at a club,&nbsp; dj&#39;s, bands, distributers, and publicly displaying the content for a fee.

Not to share, but you can&#39;t share media that has not been released. such as movies, songs, and inteligence.

I mean we do have radio&#39;s and tv&#39;s that we can collect this from also, but it is not illegal. so long as there is no motive for profit.
No your wrong. Read this... DMCA and DVD info (http://www.protectfairuse.org/policymakers/policy_solutions.html)

The DMCA, prevents the copying, or in essence, the thwarting of any digital encryption, etc, in any form.

You cannot, at this time... legal copy your own DVD&#39;s that you have purchased, or make back up cds, of cds that have encryption... its illegal to cirumvent it on software also.

This of course leads to the debate of "fair use", which the supreme court entitled years ago. Which of course, is the biggest reason to overturn, or modify the DMCA....

xanex... that also aplies to your so called rule of one... which, if its encrypted... gets thrown out the window, and is the rule of none... :D

sucks dont it... [/b][/quote]

Ur link is US related.

I dont know if it applies to the UK

it seems to be a trend that if the law is applicable in the USA then people automatically assume its applicable in other countrys.

US law is not UK law

[clocker]

Xanex, you might find it instructive to check out some of JmiF&#39;s posts on this subject. He is from the UK and has posted the relevant UK law.
Assuming he is correct- and I have no reason to think otherwise - you are DEAD WRONG.

It&#39;s easy to castigate US law, and even more tempting to assume that your local legislation is more sensible, but I think that you&#39;ll find that the RIAA and their kind have been very active internationally for some years.
We may be the focus of attention today, but don&#39;t kid yourself, they laid the groundwork for an attack on you years ago. :o

[Schmiggy_JK23]

ya, dont think cuz your in the UK your above US law... just ask the guy who created Decss... he thought he was too, as he was german if not mistaken...

And yes... you may like your laws better... but its very easy for international law to take precendence, and or countries or locals give in to expedition, etc...

[Xanex]

Originally posted by clocker@23 April 2003 - 14:06
Xanex, you might find it instructive to check out some of JmiF&#39;s posts on this subject. He is from the UK and has posted the relevant UK law.
Assuming he is correct- and I have no reason to think otherwise - you are DEAD WRONG.

It&#39;s easy to castigate US law, and even more tempting to assume that your local legislation is more sensible, but I think that you&#39;ll find that the RIAA and their kind have been very active internationally for some years.
We may be the focus of attention today, but don&#39;t kid yourself, they laid the groundwork for an attack on you years ago. :o
I have done, and yes assuming he is right tho assuming i am right. either way

I am UK too, my post was refering to the DVD site link posted.

It may astonish you but they have to get international law.

FFS there is a US law that might be passed that would make firewalls illegal, and some people will try to make it seem it applys to us in the UK, i dont forsee any way that that law will be made international

And if you where to read my post carfully u will find that i have no doubt about the international aspect I am refering directly to US law and its power in other countrys, in which case its international law, and as of yet i have to yet to see a digital copyright law expressed by the so called riaa, and their views on the deal.

US laws do not have direct power over other countrys.

Example: age of 21 in the USA to drink: 18 in the UK etc etc

Xanex

[Xanex]

Originally posted by Schmiggy_JK23@23 April 2003 - 14:26
ya, dont think cuz your in the UK your above US law... just ask the guy who created Decss... he thought he was too, as he was german if not mistaken...

And yes... you may like your laws better... but its very easy for international law to take precendence, and or countries or locals give in to expedition, etc...
Well US law dont mean dick to me over here. If they want me for something they would have to proove to my government that i have broken the law here 1st then if not then they can extridite me but i doubt that the "Crimes" i have commited are worth going to war over

US law ha&#33; I&#39;ll care about US law when im in the US. How can i break a law of a country im not in.

The digital copyright thing is still hazy over here, they aint decided. and they wont yet not till US corporate companys get off their high horse trying to save the world.


I think they got that DeCSS guy on the "code breaking" aspect. he technically broke international law by decoding an encryoted piece of software, which is illegal internationally, if it wernt they would have nothing on him.
Xanex

[Schmiggy_JK23]

No it wasnt for code breaking... he wasnt some army intell gatherer... it was attempting to pirate dvds with his source code... See article (http://www.cnn.com/2003/TECH/01/07/dvd.johansen/), of course he was aquited, as they had no proof to show he used decss for piracy means.

however my point in the matter was, to show they can get you, in another country or not, if they want you bad enough... and he was from norway apparently.

[Xanex]

Originally posted by Schmiggy_JK23@23 April 2003 - 14:47
No it wasnt for code breaking... he wasnt some army intell gatherer... it was attempting to pirate dvds with his source code... See article (http://www.cnn.com/2003/TECH/01/07/dvd.johansen/), of course he was aquited, as they had no proof to show he used decss for piracy means.

however my point in the matter was, to show they can get you, in another country or not, if they want you bad enough... and he was from norway apparently.
Did he not invent a program that broke the encryption of an encrypted piece of software?

He did so ergo broke the international law, whether you are breaking an email encryption code or software serial key its the same thing.

Yet they couldnt do him for it since they couldnt proove he was actually using the prog to copy dvds to sell: hence making a profit

I did find this website: http://www.copyrightservice.co.uk/copyrigh...ght/law(01).htm (http://www.copyrightservice.co.uk/copyright/law(01).htm)

bottom of the page:

Acts that do not infringe copyright
&#39;Fair dealing’ is a term used to describe acts which are permitted to a certain degree (normally copies of parts of a work) without infringing copyright, these acts are; Private and research study purposes. Performance, copies or lending for educational purposes. Criticism and news reporting. Incidental inclusion. Copies and lending by librarians. Acts for the purposes of Royal Commissions, statutory enquiries, judicial proceedings and parliamentary purposes. Recording of broadcasts for the purposes of listening to or viewing at a more convenient time, this is known as ‘time shifting’. Producing a back up copy for personal use of a computer program. Playing sound recording for a non profit making organisation, club or society. [Profit making organisations and individuals should obtain a licence from the Performing Rights Society.]


notice the thing about public use

go figure :P

and that is UK law

USA laws do not apply to UK, we have our own laws.
Xanex

[Schmiggy_JK23]

that may be so, but he clearly wasnt charged with it... so its irrelevant.

he was charged with piracy/attempted piracy... etc....

[Xanex]

And he was aquitted, they may be able to get to you but they cant do dick about it. so ergo they cant get to you&#33;

i think i have won this round.

UK law wins as far as im concernd. and since im UK it aplpies to me.

One would argue that an audio cd played on a pc is but a program.

Yet i agree the encryption things is true, example PS1 PS2 games are encrpyted

Xanex

[J'Pol]

The UK Government will not extradite you for a crime which is not recognised as a crime in the United Kingdom.

There are international arrest warrants formembers of certain organisation, who are living in the UK. The crime is being a member of that organisation. The UK Government will not enforce these warrants, or grant extradition because there is no such offence in the UK. I think that is more serious than file sharing.

It is however perfectly possible to commit a crime in a country which you are not in, or have never been in. The most obvious examples are drug trafficking and money laundering. In these cases extradition could be sought and is likely to be granted.

I can say with a high degree of certainly that no-one is likely to be extradited from Scotland for fiscal offences. Unless they are of a very substantial size. The powers are reserved for serious matters.

[clocker]

You seem to be confusing "US law" with international "treaty".

RIAA is hardly interested in extradicting you to the US to stand trial. They don&#39;t have to.
The UK signed the treaty which enables your prosecution right from the comfort of Ole Blighty.

Sorry you&#39;ll not get the trans-Atlantic plane trip, I hear the pretzels are to die for.

[J'Pol]

Originally posted by clocker@23 April 2003 - 18:08
You seem to be confusing "US law" with international "treaty".

RIAA is hardly interested in extradicting you to the US to stand trial. They don&#39;t have to.
The UK signed the treaty which enables your prosecution right from the comfort of Ole Blighty.

Sorry you&#39;ll not get the trans-Atlantic plane trip, I hear the pretzels are to die for.
Are you saying that someone in the UK could stand trial, in the UK, for something which is an offence in another country.

Who would the prosecuting body be.

Which treaty is this you speak of. I would really like to ahve a look at that.

[Schmiggy_JK23]

boy, aint that a bitch if thats true.

[clocker]

Originally posted by JmiF@23 April 2003 - 13:06


Which treaty is this you speak of. I would really like to ahve a look at that.
I shan&#39;t insult you with another of my nonfunctional links .

The treaty to which I refer can be sourced by Googling "WTO-WIPO."
That stands for World Trade Organization - World Intellectual Property rights Organization.
The name alone should give you a fair idea about the rabbit in the box.
My eyes grew tired and my brain grew weary trying to wade through the jargon and I would love to be dissuaded from my belief that even if this treaty doesn&#39;t specifically refer to our present topic of conversation, then it at least lays the groundwork for future worldwide enforcement of what has been called "US law".

C&#39;mon guys, is it unreasonable to believe that British, or Scottish(?) or Welsh media groups are just as upset about the p2p piracy as Sony is? Don&#39;t you think that they are doing everything in their power to seek redress?
I envy you your apparent invulnerability from attack and hope that you continue to enjoy it.
But I certainly wouldn&#39;t bet the bairn on it.

[J'Pol]

http://www.wto.org/english/tratop_e/trips_..._e/wtowip_e.htm (http://www.wto.org/english/tratop_e/trips_e/wtowip_e.htm)

I assume you said this as a joke as it is entirely irrelevant to this discussion.

[J'Pol]

Check this

http://www.hri.org/docs/ECHR50.html

Particularly Article 8

ARTICLE 8
Everyone has the right to respect for his private and family life, his home and his correspondence.
There shall be no interference by a public authority with the exercise of this right except such as is in accordance with the law and is necessary in a democratic society in the interests of national security, public safety or the economic well-being of the country, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, or for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others.

[clocker]

Originally posted by JmiF@23 April 2003 - 16:56


I assume you said this as a joke as it is entirely irrelevant to this discussion.
hmmm, let&#39;s see....
WIPO...World Intellectual Property Organization...hmmmm...
30 some treaties concerning the protection of intellectual property...hmmm...
Member nations...er...yup, United Kingdom...

erm,relevance.....hmmm don&#39;t see any.
Sorry.

Don&#39;t know WHAT I could have been thinking.

[Jibbler]

Damn&#33; I got to work for one day and an international war breaks out while I&#39;m gone&#33; :o B)

I suppose most of this is moot since they don&#39;t have the resources to actually catch all of us. However I will point out, there is a huge difference between Civil and Criminal responsibility. Copyright laws are applied internationally.

If you are stealing files, then you have committed a crime. Your local laws may not represent this, but you are not absolved from responsibility. This is a criminal act.

It is also a Civil act, which they could sue you for, and thus recover damages if they were to win, despite your location on this humble little planet of ours.

In the UK this may be less common, but OJ Simpson is a huge example of this. He was found not guilty of the murder of his wife, but we was found to be libel in a civil court, and had to pay &#036;25 million in damages to the family.

[clocker]

Originally posted by Jibbler@23 April 2003 - 18:10


In the UK this may be less common, but OJ Simpson is a huge example of this. He was found not guilty of the murder of his wife, but we was found to be libel in a civil court, and had to pay &#036;25 million in damages to the family.
Oh yeah.
I&#39;d love to see the cancelled check for that settlement.

[clocker]

Originally posted by JmiF@23 April 2003 - 17:07


ARTICLE 8
Everyone has the right to respect for his private and family life, his home and his correspondence.
There shall be no interference by a public authority with the exercise of this right except such as is in accordance with the law and is necessary in a democratic society in the interests of national security, public safety or the economic well-being of the country, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, or for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others.
How does this bolster your argument?

As soon as you reach the phrase "except such as is in accordance" all your imagined protections go straight to hell.

[Schmiggy_JK23]

jmif, on a side note, could you please shrink your sig... its longer then it should be, and really fucks up my browser size wise. its alot longer then 495.... :unsure:

Guys, theres no doubt what we are doing is illegal. I just think its nieve for people to think cuz they are in another country, that the RIAA, the MPAA, or whoever cant prosecute them, or charge them, etc, thats just silly. Just cuz your somewhere else, doesnt mean your safe... thats moronic to think that.

[Jibbler]

Originally posted by Schmiggy_JK23@23 April 2003 - 21:21
I just think its nieve for people to think cuz they are in another country, that the RIAA, the MPAA, or whoever cant prosecute them, or charge them, etc, thats just silly.&nbsp; Just cuz your somewhere else, doesnt mean your safe... thats moronic to think that.
Well look what we&#39;ve found here on the ol&#39; internet. Could this possibly put a rest to the "your country vs. my country" argument?

This is regarding copyright laws - internationally speaking:

Question: What if the alleged infringement happens outside of the U.S.?

Answer: International rules including the TRIPs Agreement and the Berne Convention allow the U.S. to enforce its copyright rules under local laws in over 100 participating nations.

Here is the link (http://www.chillingeffects.org/piracy/faq.cgi#QID272) should any of you require further reading. JimF? Satisfied yet? :D

Edit: typos

[Schmiggy_JK23]

PWNED&#33;

gee gee jibby&#33;

I knew there had to be something like that...

[Schmiggy_JK23]

Article on the RIAA and their likely targests (http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=9107)

check out that article, pretty good ideas there.

[J'Pol]

Originally posted by clocker+24 April 2003 - 01:23--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (clocker @ 24 April 2003 - 01:23)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin--JmiF@23 April 2003 - 17:07


ARTICLE 8
Everyone has the right to respect for his private and family life, his home and his correspondence.
There shall be no interference by a public authority with the exercise of this right except such as is in accordance with the law and is necessary in a democratic society in the interests of national security, public safety or the economic well-being of the country, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, or for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others.
How does this bolster your argument?

As soon as you reach the phrase "except such as is in accordance" all your imagined protections go straight to hell. [/b][/quote]
The ECHR and in particular article 8 protects individuals rights to privacy. These rights can be breached by law enforcement provided that various tests are met.

For example one of the tests is proportionality. One would have to show to the courts that it was proportionate to obtain a search warrant, in order to establish whether or not someone was sharing files. Further they would have to prove this in the light of that file sharing being on a non-profit making basis.

If the action anticipated were to be civil in nature then no warrant would be available. Therefore no evidence. Therefore no case.

Under the terms of the Data Protection Act your isp would be unable to provide the necessary data without a warrant or other instrument. See above.

I´ve asked this question elsewhere. Who would the prosecuting body be. Remembering it would have to be someone who has the right to prosecute criminal cases. In short it is the Crown, in England via the CPA in Scotland via the Procurator Fiscal. Neither of whom would be interested in this type of thing. Unless it is someone who is doing it on a large scale for profit.

You are left with civil proceedings, where it is a practical impossibility to get the evidence required. So sue me.

[J'Pol]

Originally posted by Jibbler+24 April 2003 - 04:11--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Jibbler @ 24 April 2003 - 04:11)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin--Schmiggy_JK23@23 April 2003 - 21:21
I just think its nieve for people to think cuz they are in another country, that the RIAA, the MPAA, or whoever cant prosecute them, or charge them, etc, thats just silly. Just cuz your somewhere else, doesnt mean your safe... thats moronic to think that.
Well look what we&#39;ve found here on the ol&#39; internet. Could this possibly put a rest to the "your country vs. my country" argument?

This is regarding copyright laws - internationally speaking:

Question: What if the alleged infringement happens outside of the U.S.?

Answer: International rules including the TRIPs Agreement and the Berne Convention allow the U.S. to enforce its copyright rules under local laws in over 100 participating nations.

Here is the link (http://www.chillingeffects.org/piracy/faq.cgi#QID272) should any of you require further reading. JimF? Satisfied yet? :D

Edit: typos [/b][/quote]
Thanks for that.

Please don´t take this the wrong way. You can show me this type of article all day long. However as long as I believe that it is a practical impossibility for anything to be done (see my post a few up) then it doesn´t really concern me.

If and when I get worried about it I will take even more action to protect myself.

[Schmiggy_JK23]

i for one, i dunno bout jibby, am not trying to convince to you be worried, or protect yourself... shit... i bet if it comes down to it... i have more way more value of copyrighted works to worry about.

I just think its amusing that everyone, not just you, as you have more grasp of it then most, think they are just gonna run along and never get any shit from anyone.

Yes, i agree, odds are 99.9999999% of filesharers out there will never get in a drop of trouble. look at the three kids at colleges that are in trouble right now, and verizon may very well have to hand over the info to incriminate them, though they are fighting it. The DOJ recently filed a report supporting the case agaisnt them, and its good odds that they will rule against them.

I bet they didnt think they would get in any trouble either, lord knows, many of us on here are sharing for more then them...

The protection i take? a firewall, and PG... thats about it... not even the privacy patch, as i dont want to seen as a leech. May i get in trouble someday? maybe... but id bet id get warnings first... then id go from there...

Its just that people shouldnt think they are invincible in all this, because we arent.

[RealitY]

Originally posted by JmiF@24 April 2003 - 08:13
For example one of the tests is proportionality. One would have to show to the courts that it was proportionate to obtain a search warrant, in order to establish whether or not someone was sharing files. Further they would have to prove this in the light of that file sharing being on a non-profit making basis.
Not true according to the DCMA.
Besides I do not think the issue is profit, once again,
your files at one end, and millions of users at the other,
defines distribution.

Well lets make it a simple chose...

(A)Piracy - (B)Privacy

Shall we take a poll?

[Xanex]

May i remind people of the link that i found relating to UK copyright law and in section 8: Acts that do not infringe copyright

Since this is UK law it can&#39;t be contrary to international law, and thus must be applicable to you.

&#39;Fair dealing’ is a term used to describe acts which are permitted to a certain degree (normally copies of parts of a work) without infringing copyright, these acts are; Private and research study purposes. Performance, copies or lending for educational purposes. Criticism and news reporting. Incidental inclusion. Copies and lending by librarians. Acts for the purposes of Royal Commissions, statutory enquiries, judicial proceedings and parliamentary purposes. Recording of broadcasts for the purposes of listening to or viewing at a more convenient time, this is known as ‘time shifting’.

Producing a back up copy for personal use of a computer program.

Playing sound recording for a non profit making organisation, club or society. [Profit making organisations and individuals should obtain a licence from the Performing Rights Society.]

For an extreme example: If murder was not illgal in the US nor was it illgal internationally. if a UK citizen went over to america and killed someone, there is no way that the UK could procescute this person, nor could they extridite him/her.

Yet if the person returns to the UK they can be arrested for breach of the contract clause.

Things like human rights cant be overruled by Country/state law. Yet things like being able to smoke cannabis are, these things are down to the individual country, since its not against international law.

So ergo this exception about BACK-UP copying a computer program for personal use is also down to the individual country and so far its not illgal in this country, as some people put it good olde blighty, heh u&#39;ll be calling us limeys next LOL.

This copy law is one of those laws that cant be overturned, so IF its illgal internationally for this rule we (UK government) cant overturn it. So ergo it must be legal for you to do this. But IF its legal internationally, then im not sure if the country can overturn that rulling

*cough* *cough* it just might happen that you accidentally lose this copy and it winds up in ur mates house, lol

So if we are not breaking international law nor UK law, there is no way the riaa can prosecute me for making backup copys of my CD collection (going on the thing that audio cd&#39;s can be classified as "prog&#39;s" to a PC)

Xanex

[RealitY]

Backup is fine but...
Your files at one end, and millions of users at the other,
defines distribution.

[Xanex]

Aye that is true and hence breaks international law, If i where to share them.

So yes the riaa could sue my ass over it, but for them to get anywhere with it i would have to be some big pirate monkey who makes a shit load of money for them to do any thing, as a poor student they are going to get diddly squat from me.

[J'Pol]

Originally posted by REALITY+24 April 2003 - 09:28--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (REALITY @ 24 April 2003 - 09:28)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin--JmiF@24 April 2003 - 08:13
For example one of the tests is proportionality. One would have to show to the courts that it was proportionate to obtain a search warrant, in order to establish whether or not someone was sharing files. Further they would have to prove this in the light of that file sharing being on a non-profit making basis.
Not true according to the DCMA.
Besides I do not think the issue is profit, once again,
your files at one end, and millions of users at the other,
defines distribution.

Well lets make it a simple chose...

(A)Piracy - (B)Privacy

Shall we take a poll? [/b][/quote]
I really don´t care what DCMA says. The test for proportionality is based on what the ECHR says.

No prosecuting agency, in the UK would apply for warrant for non profit making file sharing.

They would have to be convinced that it was a criminal act, of sufficient seriousness to justify breaching the individuals right to privacy. In doing so they look at the likely sentence, if the person is found guilty of the crime, on a first offence. The likelihood of a non-profit making sharer being sentenced to prison, on a first offence is very low. Therefore it is not a serious arrestable offence. therefore no warrant.

It´s difficult enough for them to get warrants for people openly selling CDs of pirate software.

In Glasgow there is a shop called PC CD Rom. All it sells is pirate CD software. It advertises this in the windows. Games CDs with say 10 cracked games are 10 pounds. Software CDs, no matter what is on them, say 3,000 worth of software are 15 pounds. It is roughly 500 yards from the nearest main Police Station. It trades openly, but doesn´t keep any stock in the shop. People browse through binders and say what they want. Someone then goes out of the shop goes to a flat and brings the CD back.

I´m not worried about sharing. However I do take precautions. I use a NAT Router, Software Firewall, Per Guardian and my IP changes once a day.

[RealitY]

I am again not conserned about anyone getting a warrant but am concerned about getting denial of service.
Curious, I use all the same but how do you change your ip daily?
Let me know.

[clocker]

OK all you UK&#39;ers, you might have a point...

After monitoring all the threads about this subject over the past few days a thought came to me.

In the US the RIAA has filed a couple of very large suits against some individual filesharers.
Very useful for making a big media splash, but ultimately a waste of time
The RIAA has also brought increasing pressure to bear on ISP&#39;s.
Quite effective- Comcast knuckled under immediately and AOL appears to be caving- they achieve maximum effect with minimal effort. Almost in fact, making the ISP&#39;s do their dirty work for them.

So it seems to me that the RIAA/MPAA is not going to focus their attention on wee little fish such as ourselves because ultimately THEY DON&#39;T HAVE TO.They can force the ISP&#39;s to do it for them, most likely through the mechanism of "denial of service".
So your chances of going to gaol are probably very slight indeed.
As are your chances of continuing to enjoy this pirate&#39;s paradise.

Soon, I suspect, most of our downloading will be done in the loo.

[chloe_cc2002]

I am in Siberia and I was wondering whether any Lawyers out there or people who know about the way the law actually works too in practice, could tell me whether you think it is copyright infringement if I got my friend to scan some documents that they were released from the Police.

They say that the documents make no sense and paint some kind of picture of some kind.

They like music, and I thought since someone here might know, then I might ask just while I happen to be here and all.

The problem is they probably wouldn&#39;t know how to use comupters and they are way out paranoid too. They probably wouldn&#39;t know how to put their scanned documents in the right folder as their music folder.

Maybe if I could teach them how to put their scanned folders into the right folders they could become a kazaalite user too and then they could just listen to some music and mellow out. They think the SWATT team is going to come banging on their door soon.... :rolleyes: and take their documents and them away for some other crime, not copyright.

I told them that there are other storage mediums and they seem to know about the other storage mediums but they seem to be hellbent on publishing these documents for some reason because they say they are banging their head against a brick wall trying to get Bureau-c-rats to listen to them, before they get locked up.

Now living in Siberia, I think this person has a serious persecution problem.

What was the question again?

[J'Pol]

Originally posted by REALITY@24 April 2003 - 21:20
I am again not conserned about anyone getting a warrant but am concerned about getting denial of service.
Curious, I use all the same but how do you change your ip daily?
Let me know.
I don&#39;t change it once a day myself. My understanding is that, this is done by my broadband provider. It is a security measure. Both Telewest and NTL do this.

The cable "modem" also gets a new ip every time it reboots, so if I chose to I can do it that way

I also have the Router set to obtain the ip address automatically. So it accepts the ip address as supplied by the cable "modem"

I have said it elsewhere. Unless someone is doing their own hosting they should avoid static ips wherever possible.

[Jibbler]

I have a static IP. My broadband provider keeps them for about 2 weeks before they get recycled. I been sharing files for years, and haven&#39;t had any problems yet. Surely it would be a rare instance actually getting caught. So, like JimF, I&#39;ll take my chances. Hopefully this thread has helped clear up the grey area for some of the newbies. :huh:

[clocker]

If anything, this thread eliminated the black and white and showed that it&#39;s ALL grey right now.

[Jibbler]

Originally posted by clocker@24 April 2003 - 20:12
If anything, this thread eliminated the black and white and showed that it&#39;s ALL grey right now.
Good point Clocker. Race ya to the movie theater? :D

[Schmiggy_JK23]

Sorry guys... I beat you there already.... as I work part time there...

:lol: :lol:

I am contracted by a independant company to do seat counts/head counts, and trailer checks, (checking for certain trailers, b4 certian films, etc), at theaters throughout west michigan. Ya, its nice. hehe, as I get to see free movie&#33;

[WebCheF]

Originally posted by Schmiggy_JK23+23 April 2003 - 12:50--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Schmiggy_JK23 @ 23 April 2003 - 12:50)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin--WebCheF@20 April 2003 - 23:00
There is no law with a copy of protected media, just law to prohibit the use of it for a profit, such as entertainment at a club,&nbsp; dj&#39;s, bands, distributers, and publicly displaying the content for a fee.

Not to share, but you can&#39;t share media that has not been released. such as movies, songs, and inteligence.

I mean we do have radio&#39;s and tv&#39;s that we can collect this from also, but it is not illegal. so long as there is no motive for profit.
No your wrong. Read this... DMCA and DVD info (http://www.protectfairuse.org/policymakers/policy_solutions.html)

The DMCA, prevents the copying, or in essence, the thwarting of any digital encryption, etc, in any form.

You cannot, at this time... legal copy your own DVD&#39;s that you have purchased, or make back up cds, of cds that have encryption... its illegal to cirumvent it on software also.

This of course leads to the debate of "fair use", which the supreme court entitled years ago. Which of course, is the biggest reason to overturn, or modify the DMCA....

xanex... that also aplies to your so called rule of one... which, if its encrypted... gets thrown out the window, and is the rule of none... :D

sucks dont it... [/b][/quote]
I have to bow,

Ok, guess I was just excited and got carried away, er,pulled some of that shit out of my ass, lol

Hey, it sounded good to me at the time. But, I can admit I am wrong, when someone calls my bluff. lol

BTW, thanks for the skinny on the copy thing though Smigs

[WebCheF]

Originally posted by Schmiggy_JK23@25 April 2003 - 12:21
Sorry guys... I beat you there already.... as I work part time there...

:lol: :lol:

I am contracted by a independant company to do seat counts/head counts, and trailer checks, (checking for certain trailers, b4 certian films, etc), at theaters throughout west michigan. Ya, its nice. hehe, as I get to see free movie&#33;
Question? In your work, which I AM jealous,lol, What would, say, happen to someone caught with a , oh let&#39;s say a "cam" is that real bad?

I said it with sarcasm, but I realy am curious. I know the security has been beefed up due to the issue.

[OcramC]

Originally posted by Xanex@17 April 2003 - 13:47
Im not in th USA, im UK but from what I have read and heard some parts of the US constitution seem to protect you the person, but in fact open the can of worms to the government to own you if they so wish.

If read carefully, the average US citizen actaully has little of their own rights that cant be overturned or blocked by some ammendment or courtcase.

This website was quite a intersting read, dunno how much of it is true though.

http://www.gemworld.com/USAvsUS.htm

( I particualy like the bit about your children not being your own)

But this post is aobut copyright anyway....

Quote: From RIAA website
"The Congress shall have Power . . . To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries ."

(/offpostTopic what makes me laugh is that most american companys believe that they can succesfully sue a person even tho they are not in the country, haha, INFO: USA law is just that, USA ONLY. unless some international law comes about then nothing can be done, even then the law only applies to those countrys that are part of that international union.)

Basically copyright is that you own the rights to anything that you yourself have made, to prevent other people from stealing your ideas and claiming them as your own. The origenal Copyright has nothing to do with ripping a song to your pc thou it holds for most things.

EG Dyson the vaccum cleaner guy , he has to copyright his designs so people dont use them in their machines.

Though if you read it carefully, it says for a limited time. This opens the doors for the copyright protectors to charge you countless sums of money to keep your idea your idea.

Gone where the days where if you have the deed to your house then its your house, and if someone has your deed, by law its their house, though you would like to try and proove that it is your house and thus we move to todays "ownership" standards.

(Now im not bashing the usa constitution, nor do i wish a flame war, tho i feel that some heavy patriots will take offense to what i say because im challenging their beliefs, and because of their Quote: sheer bloody mindedness in thinking that the USA is the center of the world, -excerpt from some post i cant find right now.)
But if people use their brains and not believe the things that they have been spoon fed over the decades then they will see the truth.)

Now copyright has taken on another form being that it now is supposed to protect the owners money, since each song cost money each copy is vital, they are all like scrooges hording their copys of songs. So if u copy a song you are stealing from the owner (haha). It reminds me of my mum, she goes shopping and its sale day, she buys somthing that is reduced, comes home and says "look how much i saved, i reply "u aint saved nothing, uve spent that money actaully"

Just some random BS that popped into my head right now,

Xanex
that was a long read

[Xanex]

aye so it was, i didn&#39;t ever expect one of my posts to cause such a stir on these boards, although it hasnt got the biggest post count in the world it sure beats some of the poct count building replys of...

:)

that you get, as i said, i like to put thought into my posts. glad you enjoyied it.

I may not have the biggest post count in the forum but i am one of the oldest members and i think that that holds something in this world.

the rule of one copy still prevails

Xan