More Powerful Than The Government?

[iL.L0gIc.aL]

Check this out.............

LINK (http://zeropaid.com/news/articles/auto/04172003c.php)

They are getting absolutely ridiculous. I'm sick of these people saying we can't share what is rightfully ours in the first place. Sorry, but once i buy a CD, its MINE, not anyone elses, and if i choose to share what i buy with my friends, then what is wrong with that?

["The Avatar Man"]

technically you buy the cd but you dont own the music so you can share the physical cd but not the music on it,at least according to the law in the US

[Lamsey]

according to international copyright laws too.

[Jibbler]

Originally posted by "The Avatar Man"@20 April 2003 - 15:44
technically you buy the cd but you dont own the music so you can share the physical cd but not the music on it,at least according to the law in the US
Actually, this is exactly the problem. There is no law defining this. The only thing that is truly "illegal" is copying, and redistribution for profit, without paying royalty rights.

For instance, lets use Linkin Park's new CD as an example. If I purchase the CD, then play all the tracks backward, and resell it as Pinkin Lark, is there are specific law against that? No. It is assumed that the content is owned by Linkin Park, but this is not clearly defined. ;)

[TIDE-HSV]

You are missing the point of the law. The content belongs to that artist, under the copywright statutes, regardless of how it's modified. There are many landmark infringement cases where plagiarism has been found where the music laymen would be hard-pressed to see the resemblance to the protected material. Linkin Park backwards would be a slam dunk.

[Jibbler]

Originally posted by TIDE-HSV@20 April 2003 - 17:39
There are many landmark infringement cases where plagiarism has been found where the music laymen would be hard-pressed to see the resemblance to the protected material.
Once again, you are missing the point.

Plagiarism refers to a piece of writing, i.e. print media, not music. Would I be committing plagiarism if I were to sing along with Linkin Park while I heard their song on the radio?

RESEARCH OR BEAT IT! :lol: :lol:

[clocker]

Originally posted by Jibbler+20 April 2003 - 17:15--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Jibbler @ 20 April 2003 - 17:15)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin--TIDE-HSV@20 April 2003 - 17:39
There are many landmark infringement cases where plagiarism has been found where the music laymen would be hard-pressed to see the resemblance to the protected material.
Once again, you are missing the point.

Plagiarism refers to a piece of writing, i.e. print media, not music. Would I be committing plagiarism if I were to sing along with Linkin Park while I heard their song on the radio?

RESEARCH OR BEAT IT&#33; :lol: :lol: [/b][/quote]
Sorry, Jibbler, but tis you who needs to do some research.

Plagarism laws are very much applicable to music also.
Your singing of a song is completely legal, but sharing Linkin Park&#39;s new CD, whether you bought it or not, is without a doubt in violation of international law.

[J'Pol]

Anyone,

Quote me an international law.

Other Than CRIJICA.

I already know that one.

[clocker]

Originally posted by JmiF@20 April 2003 - 18:49
Anyone,

Quote me an international law.

Other Than CRIJICA.

I already know that one.
Berne Convention, as revised, article 3 (http://www.law.cornel.edu/treaties/berneoverview.html)

I think that is fairly concise. I&#39;m not a lawyer and I got the general drift.

[Jibbler]

Originally posted by clocker@20 April 2003 - 19:37
Plagarism laws are very much applicable to music also.

Once again, this applies to written work only.

Plagiarism: a piece of writing that has been copied from someone else and is presented as being your own work

This also is from websters.com ;) While I don&#39;t consider Websters to be an authority when it comes to law, I do consider them an authority when it comes to defining words.

I SECOND THE MOTION, RESEARCH OR BEAT IT&#33; :huh:

Sorry if I&#39;m coming off a little harsh, but everyone seems to pass on what they think they know instead of what they can prove thru research with documented sources. :rolleyes: <_< ;)

[Jibbler]

Originally posted by TIDE-HSV@20 April 2003 - 17:39
You are missing the point of the law. The content belongs to that artist, under the copywright statutes, regardless of how it&#39;s modified.
Re-write the fucking law so that it is clear. ;)

[TIDE-HSV]

I didn&#39;t want to dip this deep, but, Jibbler seemed to imply that he could play a copywrighted song backwards and that would be beyond the reach of the law. Plagiarism is a form of copywright violation. I just wanted to point out that modification of protected material doesn&#39;t place the act beyond the law as a violation. This is a common misconception.

[clocker]

Originally posted by Jibbler@20 April 2003 - 19:07


I SECOND THE MOTION, RESEARCH OR BEAT IT&#33; :huh:

Sorry if I&#39;m coming off a little harsh, but everyone seems to pass on what they think they know and what they can prove thru research with documented sources. :rolleyes: <_< ;)
Read my post right above you.
Go to that link.

That isn&#39;t just something I THOUGHT I knew.
That is the law.
The definition of plagarism has been expanded to cover all sorts of applications that your moldy Websters doesn&#39;t recognize.
You keep saying you don&#39;t think that Websters is the definitive source for information while continuing to use it as yours.

Try Google.

[TIDE-HSV]

The RIAA and the MPAA both seem to feel that the law is abundantly clear. And they have the police on their side. The question is whether or not the courts, in the final analysis, will be on their side. Of course, you have your Websters.

[clocker]

Originally posted by TIDE-HSV@20 April 2003 - 19:15
The RIAA and the MPAA both seem to feel that the law is abundantly clear. And they have the police on their side. The question is whether or not the courts, in the final analysis, will be on their side. Of course, you have your Websters.
:lol: :lol: :lol:

Yes, Jibbler and his cellmates will have all sorts of time to peruse Websters whilst preparing their appeals.

I look forward to seeing it on Court TV.

[Jibbler]

Originally posted by clocker@20 April 2003 - 20:13
Read my post right above you.
Go to that link.

That isn&#39;t just something I THOUGHT I knew.
That is the law.
The definition of plagarism has been expanded to cover all sorts of applications that your moldy Websters doesn&#39;t recognize.
You keep saying you don&#39;t think that Websters is the definitive source for information while continuing to use it as yours.

Try Google.
I tried your link, and it was dead, or at least not responding. I used Websters in this example, because they actually "quote their sources", which means they give credit and specifically identify the written sources they used for documentation. This information is also available in print form, which is widely available at any public library.

Google, is a search engine, it is not an authoritive source. In fact, very little information on the internet is considered credible in the grand scheme of things. Anyone can type some HTML, but that does not make it fact.

Did any of you learn to write a research paper in school? :huh: :o

[TIDE-HSV]

I feel their pain. However, the DMCA of 1998 was drafter specifically to make our favorite hobby illegal, and, on the face of it, it does. There are tens of thousands of lawyers nationwide waiting to see the collision between that Act and the First Amendment in the Supreme Court. Seeing someone pound on a Webster&#39;s volume here is a bit comical, when one considers the legal resources that are being brought to bear on both sides of the issue. We&#39;ll await the outcome, whether we want or not. However, I make the point again that, while the courts grind away, technology is hard at work robbing the courts of their relevance. So it&#39;s illegal? Good, I&#39;ll try a different way.

[Jibbler]

Originally posted by TIDE-HSV@20 April 2003 - 20:15
The RIAA and the MPAA both seem to feel that the law is abundantly clear.&nbsp; And they have the police on their side.&nbsp; The question is whether or not the courts, in the final analysis, will be on their side.&nbsp; Of course, you have your Websters.
The police are not the authority, the courts are, as you have stated. Clearly the RIAA/MPAA believe the law is very clear. They also stand to lose millions if they are wrong.

Laugh all you want at "websters", all that I&#39;m asking is that you provide a clear and definitive policy/law/whatever, in regards to movies and music, live concerts, and the limits of intellectual property. :huh: :huh:

I&#39;m glad someone realizes the humor in all this. Sure, this thread is interesting, but I was only using websters because they provide a link with which to link to. I&#39;m sure a research paper on all of this would make for a night of interesting reading for all us.

[TIDE-HSV]

Well, here&#39;s one URL for the act. I suggest you read it before any more Websters. http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/ge...2281enr.txt.pdf (http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=105_cong_bills&docid=f:h2281enr.txt.pdf)

[clocker]

I&#39;m sorry that my link is nonresponsive.
Here is the addy....www.law.cornel.edu/topics/copyright.html

For JmiF...www.law.cornel.edu/treaties/berne/overview.html

You are obviously NOT the only person here to have ever written a research paper, although I fail to see the relevance.

[Jibbler]

Interesting reading, though I&#39;m only on page 5 where the loophole is already being exploited. Let me kick some knowledge to all of you.

Currently a company is offering a DVD copy program. DVDXCOPY, if you are so inclined. This company has been sued, saying that their program "circumvents" the copyright protection system. However, this company is taking the position that their software does nothing of the sort.

They claim that anyone, who owns a DVD player, is circumventing the copyright by simply playing the DVD in ANY drive/player. They further go on to state, that their product only allows the successful burning of files to a DVD-R disk which are already on your harddrive. Essentially, this means existing hardware is the problem. Seems like this might be a good time to put their resources into another format.

Now, I&#39;m not going to take sides either way, though I&#39;m sure you know how I feel. The point here, is that the DMCA is in effect, but essentially worthless. It will tie up the courts for years, trying to determine the logistics of it all, while we will have moved on to other formats, probably before any of this is resolved. :huh: :huh:

[clocker]

Originally posted by Jibbler@20 April 2003 - 19:52


Currently a company is offering a DVD copy program. DVDXCOPY, if you are so inclined. This company has been sued, saying that their program "circumvents" the copyright protection system. However, this company is taking the position that their software does nothing of the sort.

They claim that anyone, who owns a DVD player, is circumventing the copyright by simply playing the DVD in ANY drive/player. They further go on to state, that their product only allows the successful burning of files to a DVD-R disk which are already on your harddrive. Essentially, this means existing hardware is the problem. Seems like this might be a good time to put their resources into another format.


This case clearly demonstrates why there are lawyers.
I wonder if their lawyers were involved in the suit against McDonalds for making the plaintiff obese?

[Jibbler]

Originally posted by clocker@20 April 2003 - 20:59
This case clearly demonstrates why there are lawyers.
I wonder if their lawyers were involved in the suit against McDonalds for making the plaintiff obese?
That lawsuit against McDonalds was dropped as they determined it was frivalous. However, I wouldn&#39;t be surprised if such a lawsuit were to get pushed into the courts, especially considering the amount of research into artificial food products and their possible health risks. As this gets exploited further, McDonalds may find them selves facing a civil suit.

[TIDE-HSV]

Well, the DMCA will be upheld, IMO, by the Supreme Court, in a 5-4 decision, written, at a guess, by Clarence Thomas. It will be more than just a momentary inconvenience for us states-siders, because even the reluctant ISPs, like Verizon, will have to go along and try to help enforce it. However, in the end, sharing wins out.

[clocker]

Originally posted by TIDE-HSV@20 April 2003 - 20:12
Well, the DMCA will be upheld, IMO, by the Supreme Court, in a 5-4 decision, written, at a guess, by Clarence Thomas. It will be more than just a momentary inconvenience for us states-siders, because even the reluctant ISPs, like Verizon, will have to go along and try to help enforce it. However, in the end, sharing wins out.
Your optimism is a source of comfort to me.

That, and the fact that I&#39;ll probably be dead before this gets out of the courts.

Ah, the (limited) joys of old age... :P

[Jibbler]

Yes, I agree, it probably will be upheld. However, I believe the "final product" will be a different version entirely. I feel they are on the right track, but enforcing such a law, that&#39;s different.

If the law cannot be enforced, then does it really apply? I ask this question seriously, because I&#39;m not sure of the logistics of it.

[Jibbler]

How old are you Clocker? and you JimF? and you TIDE-HSV? I&#39;m curious as to whether our ages are effecting our principles.

I&#39;ll be the first brave one. I&#39;m 26 and growing old by the minute. :rolleyes:

[clocker]

Originally posted by Jibbler@20 April 2003 - 20:20


If the law cannot be enforced, then does it really apply? I ask this question seriously, because I&#39;m not sure of the logistics of it.
ANY law could be considered specious if the test included universal application.
All laws are applied selectively.

[TIDE-HSV]

Well, J, I&#39;ve already said I&#39;ve been practicing law for 40 yrs, so I&#39;m 63. However, any young lawyer would agree with me, as I&#39;ve laid out the prospects. Age wouldn&#39;t make a bit of difference in legal analysis. I&#39;m concerned about the RIAA and MPAA using an affirmative decision from the SC to pressure my ISP to monitor me and suppress sharing. Anyone around here (US) who doesn&#39;t worry about this is just in denial. Being 26 is no excuse. :D Competition will help a lot. Here, I have a choice of two cable companies. However, the public utitlities are right behind, thirsting for new markets - and everyone who has an AC plug in the wall is a possible customer. I don&#39;t know - it&#39;ll be very interesting to see how it plays out.

[clocker]

Originally posted by Jibbler@20 April 2003 - 20:23
How old are you Clocker? and you JimF? and you TIDE-HSV? I&#39;m curious as to whether our ages are effecting our principles.

I&#39;ll be the first brave one. I&#39;m 26 and growing old by the minute. :rolleyes:
53
Fortunately, due to my massive intake of caffiene, nicotine and a few other of nature&#39;s goodies, I hardly look a day over 52.

[TIDE-HSV]

:lol: Well, I&#39;m told I look about ten years younger, but the interior parts are wearing, wearing... :(

[clocker]

Originally posted by TIDE-HSV@20 April 2003 - 20:56
:lol: Well, I&#39;m told I look about ten years younger, but the interior parts are wearing, wearing... :(
Oh, don&#39;t be sad...

Why, I&#39;ll bet you&#39;ve got at least another 2 or 3 good weeks left... :D

btw, where&#39;s j2k4? I&#39;ll bet he&#39;s an old fart too.

[TIDE-HSV]

I know, I know. It&#39;s taking those 10-12 Viagras a day that&#39;s wearing me out. :lol:

[clocker]

Originally posted by TIDE-HSV@20 April 2003 - 21:13
I know, I know. It&#39;s taking those 10-12 Viagras a day that&#39;s wearing me out. :lol:
Wearing YOUout?

[TIDE-HSV]

I can tell I&#39;ll not get the last word in on this exchange. The clock&#39;s moving towards bedtime in my time zone. :P

[clocker]

Originally posted by TIDE-HSV@20 April 2003 - 21:36
I can tell I&#39;ll not get the last word in on this exchange.&nbsp; The clock&#39;s moving towards bedtime in my time zone.&nbsp; :P
Tenacity will beat logic anytime.

[FinalTheorem]

If the law cannot be enforced, then does it really apply? I ask this question seriously, because I&#39;m not sure of the logistics of it.
I&#39;m not really knowegable about the subject, but I think Microsoft is developing a new chip, which would be installed in all new computers, and would allow the laws to be enforced. This (http://www.linuxworld.com/site-stories/2002/0731.microsoft.html) article has some information about it (Palladium Chip). To me, that seems like a total invasion of privacy, and I hope everyone has started using linux by the time this chip is (if ever) produced. :(

[TIDE-HSV]

OK, I said I&#39;d signed off, but I&#39;ll lodge this... I&#39;m more worried about this than I am about the DMCA. I&#39;m not talking just about the chips that are proposed but also the new software and hybrid "analog hole" technologies that are in the pipeline. If they succeed, we could be looking at a long interval of creative suffocation. Although they can&#39;t see that now.

[RealitY]

Originally posted by speeddemon5988@21 April 2003 - 04:45
I&#39;m not really knowegable about the subject, but I think Microsoft is developing a new chip, which would be installed in all new computers, and would allow the laws to be enforced. This (http://www.linuxworld.com/site-stories/2002/0731.microsoft.html) article has some information about it (Palladium Chip). To me, that seems like a total invasion of privacy, and I hope everyone has started using linux by the time this chip is (if ever) produced. :(
I found this article very interesting, a must read.
I have heard of this in the works for some time, a new v chip of sort,
or the comp under the seat in your car, where does it stop
trying to control and cosume all.

However I found the closing statement from the article well put...

Consider this a call to arms. Those of us who relish our freedom need to defend it. Here are some warnings about mistakes we could make easily that would undermine any effort to prevent the worst of all fates:


Companies don&#39;t have the right to violate our freedoms just to preserve an old system of making money after it has become obsolete, but they do have the right to make money. There&#39;s no reason why you should feel inclined to do their thinking for them and come up with alternative means of collecting revenues, but at least acknowledge that there&#39;s nothing wrong with charging for content. What&#39;s wrong is how they want to charge for content, and how they want to control your use of that content.

While I&#39;m happy that open source and free software often subvert the greed and control, sometimes the subversion leads to illegal piracy. That&#39;s when open source and free software deservedly get a bad reputation, and that&#39;s the ammunition companies and congress use to push unfair legislation. Don&#39;t give the enemy that ammunition or they&#39;ll use it to put our freedoms into an early grave.
It doesn&#39;t matter if companies get more than their fair share for the sales of commercial CDs and DVDs, and it doesn&#39;t matter whether you are outraged that the artists don&#39;t get the slice of income they deserve. You may be right beyond all argument. Nevertheless, civil disobedience against a company&#39;s greed is not effective when it is expressed through your own greed. The people of the Boston tea party dumped the tea so that nobody could use it. That made a much more powerful statement than if they had stolen the tea. Similarly, if you express your civil disobedience by stealing music, you are simply making it more likely that the system we&#39;ll end up with is worse than the one you&#39;re complaining about now.

In the grand scheme of things, what can I say?
In this closing statement it seems to be clearly one of the most compeling arguments against being a theive.
As where does it truly lead us, giving ammunition to those who thrive to take our freedom from us on any level.
Are you then treated accordingly as you behave?
Again, a must read.

[Switeck]

It&#39;s even worse than most people realize -- every year, MORE music cds by percentage have &#39;copy protection&#39; schemes on them that, although can be defeated still by various means... to legally backup your music. (or share it)

But the schemes serve to cause many older and younger music listeners some trouble, as many of these &#39;music cds&#39; cannot be played on a computer CD-ROM at all. So people are paying as much or more than ever for CDs (Corrupt Discs in this case)... that don&#39;t even WORK&#33; ...and this is by design&#33;

Music companies are paying more tech-savey companies to locate and document pirates on p2p networks, such as this one, for potential prosecution. Whole companies dedicated to nothing other than &#39;busting&#39; us for sharing MP3s... Fakes/Corrupted MP3s are being put out by these companies as well to &#39;posion&#39; the p2p networks and discourage/run off the pirates.

Even though I have some interest in music, I have little desire to help fund groups that are working hard to change the laws further so long jail sentences can be given to &#39;pirates&#39;.

[J'Pol]

Jumping back a bit, to Clocker, I cant get any of your links / addresses to work.

Doesn&#39;t really matter tho&#39; the point was that people just say things like internation law without knowing if such a thing exists and if so whether there are any which are relevant. Bottom line, does the phrase "international copyright law" actually mean anything.

The other thing which people miss is that there is a huge difference between criminal offences and civil. As I understand it, without researching a paper and keeping it simple. If you make a copy for your own purposes or share freely, then this is a civil matter and you can be sued. If however you do it for profit (or provide the means for distribution) then it is a criminal matter and you can be prosecuted.

To save any further confusion, in the UK you may not make a copy (backup) for your own use. UK copright law does not even allow that.

EDIT

Don&#39;t buy a motherboard / computer with the anti piracy chip on it.

[clocker]

Originally posted by JmiF@21 April 2003 - 04:54
Jumping back a bit, to Clocker, I cant get any of your links / addresses to work.
I apologize (again&#33; ) for my defective application of technology. You asked for international copyright law and all I did was Google the phrase and pick the Cornel Law School link. I don&#39;t pretend to have a comprhensive grasp of the subject ( or my computer, for that matter&#33;).
You are , of course, entirely correct by pointing out the difference between civil and criminal prosecution in p2p cases.
The RIAA however, considers "sharing" a file on this network "distribution". They make no distinction between you (us) and a Hong Kong street vendor. To them the end result is the same- loss of sales. I&#39;m sure that from their perspective rolling out the big guns and making splashy headlines makes sense. Creating a sense of fear and impending doom amongst p2p folks should serve to buy time as they figure out an effective method of exploiting the technology that they ignored for too long.

[TIDE-HSV]

Actually, the DMCA does define sharing (even without profit) as a felony - a major criminal offense.

[clocker]

Originally posted by TIDE-HSV@21 April 2003 - 07:34
Actually, the DMCA does define sharing (even without profit) as a felony - a major criminal offense.
Ah, the voice of doom returns... ;)

[j2k4]

Originally posted by clocker+20 April 2003 - 22:05--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (clocker @ 20 April 2003 - 22:05)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin--TIDE-HSV@20 April 2003 - 20:56
:lol: Well, I&#39;m told I look about ten years younger, but the interior parts are wearing, wearing... :(
Oh, don&#39;t be sad...

Why, I&#39;ll bet you&#39;ve got at least another 2 or 3 good weeks left... :D

btw, where&#39;s j2k4? I&#39;ll bet he&#39;s an old fart too. [/b][/quote]
Here I am-
I&#39;m currently 44, but am entertaining a change, possibly somewhere in the neighborhood of 32 or 33 (before the graying process kicked in).

Interesting reading. TIDE-HSV, nice to have legal guidance on this issue-difficult for us to intuit relevancies without the requisite knowledge.
The fact of your gracious offering of expertise heartens me and I feel it only fair to declare a personal moratorium on lawyer jokes.

I am among the ignorant on this issue; my sense is, in the end, P2P will ultimately prevail, though we may have to somehow cloak our activity.
This doesn&#39;t keep me from feeling a bit of paranoia at the scare tactics of the RIAA, et.al.-the non-specificity of their approach to the P2P "problem" has a scatter-shot quality that will harden with a bit of legal success, and there is no denying the power (money) of the lobby.

So-we wait?

Clocker-I see a potential market for retro (pre-Palladium-chip-type) hardware. Perhaps an opportunity awaits? :lol: :lol: :lol:

[clocker]

Originally posted by j2k4@21 April 2003 - 08:10


Clocker-I see a potential market for retro (pre-Palladium-chip-type) hardware. Perhaps an opportunity awaits? :lol: :lol: :lol:
I am on it&#33;
Just the product I&#39;ve been searching for to make my millions.
An H.G. Wellsian computer with gears and pulleys and maybe I can work in a hamster or two&#33;
Will you finance the R&D?

[J'Pol]

Originally posted by TIDE-HSV@21 April 2003 - 14:34
Actually, the DMCA does define sharing (even without profit) as a felony - a major criminal offense.
DMCA ?

[TIDE-HSV]

Sorry, Jim. Digital Millenium Copyright Act. Here&#39;s a good site to learn all about it. It would curl your hair, were you a Yank. http://www.anti-dmca.org/

[j2k4]

Originally posted by clocker+21 April 2003 - 09:15--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (clocker @ 21 April 2003 - 09:15)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin--j2k4@21 April 2003 - 08:10


Clocker-I see a potential market for retro (pre-Palladium-chip-type) hardware. Perhaps an opportunity awaits? :lol:&nbsp; :lol:&nbsp; :lol:
I am on it&#33;
Just the product I&#39;ve been searching for to make my millions.
An H.G. Wellsian computer with gears and pulleys and maybe I can work in a hamster or two&#33;
Will you finance the R&D? [/b][/quote]
I see a real low-buck operation here-mayhaps my father could be persuaded to un-retire to aid us; he is ex-IBM-was a C.E. back in the System 30/RAMAC days-he knows from gears and pulleys, belts, bells, whistles, all of it.
He actually had dinner with T.J. Watson, Jr. on several occasions-said he was a "very prepossessing boss".
I would imagine. :D

[J'Pol]

It must be me. I can´t get that link to work either.

Is there a conspiracy to avoid me reading sites on US and International Law. Come to think of it, it´s probably the same thing nowadays.

How can freely sharing a file be a felony. For heaven´s sake that really is taking things too far. I know your country is based on money, commerciality and big business but a felony. You are making people criminals based on the fact that a large corporation lost a sale. Even thought the "felon" made no gain himself. That can´t be natural justice.

[TIDE-HSV]

BTW, j2, did I mention that I&#39;d copyrighted the expression "High-tech Luddite?" ;)

[j2k4]

Originally posted by TIDE-HSV@21 April 2003 - 11:08
BTW, j2, did I mention that I&#39;d copyrighted the expression "High-tech Luddite?" ;)
Whuzzat you?
What is your learned opinion on my use of said term? Is short-term licensing available? I will change it if you wish-I am not surprised you copyrighted it; it is a superb description.
Hmmmmm. What else-GOT IT&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;

[J'Pol]

Isn&#39;t high tech luddite verging on tautologous.

Or am I qualifying a superlative.

Just wondering.

[j2k4]

Originally posted by JmiF@21 April 2003 - 12:11
Isn&#39;t high tech luddite verging on tautologous.

Or am I qualifying a superlative.

Just wondering.
It doesn&#39;t matter; just be careful with that stuff.

Actually, at first blush, it may seem to teeter on the brink of tautology , but application of a finer distinction reveals that which keeps it from tipping completely into the abyss.
I would lean toward your second option.

In any case, it really sounds neat. :)

[J'Pol]

Originally posted by j2k4+21 April 2003 - 18:24--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (j2k4 @ 21 April 2003 - 18:24)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin--JmiF@21 April 2003 - 12:11
Isn&#39;t high tech luddite verging on tautologous.

Or am I qualifying a superlative.

Just wondering.
It doesn&#39;t matter; just be careful with that stuff.

Actually, at first blush, it may seem to teeter on the brink of tautology , but application of a finer distinction reveals that which keeps it from tipping completely into the abyss.
I would lean toward your second option.

In any case, it really sounds neat. :) [/b][/quote]
Thanks for that.

At least I will be able to sleep tonight.

[clocker]

Originally posted by JmiF@21 April 2003 - 09:22
It must be me. I can´t get that link to work either.

Is there a conspiracy to avoid me reading sites on US and International Law. Come to think of it, it´s probably the same thing nowadays.

How can freely sharing a file be a felony. For heaven´s sake that really is taking things too far. I know your country is based on money, commerciality and big business but a felony. You are making people criminals based on the fact that a large corporation lost a sale. Even thought the "felon" made no gain himself. That can´t be natural justice.
1. Yes, JmiF it is true.
Last night we Americans had a secret meeting and decided you will not be allowed to access our hyperlinks. ( That explanation, while ludicrous, is far better than the more likely probability that none of us knows how to post a usable link...).

2. Clearly you are just venting as it is obvious that you realize that "natural justice" and &#39;The Law" bear no resemblance whatsoever. Unfortunately, as U.S. influence continues to grow, our laws will probably begin to be implemented in other countries too. Right now we do seem to have the biggest bat, you know.

[J'Pol]

There was a severe build up of pressure in my spleenal area, so venting was unavoidable.

Kidding aside, to make file sharing (on a personal and not commercial basis) a felony is absolutely staggering.

However I think the real issue remains of how anyone would prosecute such a case. It would be difficult to justify the proportionality of, for example, obtaining a search warrant to secure the evidence. Particularly if the information in support of it intimated that it was not for personal gain.

As ever I am talking of the position in Europe, where we have the European Convention on Human Rights, which ensures that any investigation must be proportionate to the offences alleged.

[clocker]

Originally posted by JmiF@21 April 2003 - 12:52


As ever I am talking of the position in Europe, where we have the European Convention on Human Rights, which ensures that any investigation must be proportionate to the offences alleged.
You are indeed fortunate ( if only temporarily).

Over here the RIAA/MPAA will be able to drive their agenda through the gaping loopholes of the Patriot Act and who knows what erosive legislation to come.
ONE conviction in the States and you can bet they&#39;ll be contacting their counterparts in Europe looking for a way in there also.
I&#39;m guessing that the U.S. isn&#39;t their primary target anyway. We are still affluent enough to grease the wheels locally. The Asian market seems to be the biggest source of bootleg/unauthorized material and all this could be but the prelude to a serious attack over there. A few warmup cases at home, just to test the water, and BANG, off to hunt the big fish.
I think they&#39;re gonna need a bigger boat...

[TIDE-HSV]

Well, having been called away by the grubby necessity of living-making, I return to a virtual starburst of erudition. Who&#39;d ever have anticipated seeing "tautology" being discussed by common pirates? :rolleyes: First, j2, the term is yours to use freely. All you have to do is give me proper perpetual credit. :lol: Now, for "High-Tech Luddites." Let&#39;s not forget that the original, and all, Luddites are relatively high-tech. The original Luddites&#39; steel pitchforks and scythes were extremely high-tech, compared to stone tools. Every good Luddite is only against the next step of progress - the one that takes his job.

[clocker]

Originally posted by JmiF@21 April 2003 - 12:52


Kidding aside, to make file sharing (on a personal and not commercial basis) a felony is absolutely staggering.



Allow me to play the Devil&#39;s Advocate for a moment...

"Mr. JmiF,
What exactly is so personal about you&#39;re sharing our legally copyrighted file over the internet with @ 1 billion people ?"
"You must send out alot of Christmas cards..."

[J'Pol]

Originally posted by TIDE-HSV@21 April 2003 - 22:18
Well, having been called away by the grubby necessity of living-making, I return to a virtual starburst of erudition. Who&#39;d ever have anticipated seeing "tautology" being discussed by common pirates? :rolleyes: First, j2, the term is yours to use freely. All you have to do is give me proper perpetual credit. :lol: Now, for "High-Tech Luddites." Let&#39;s not forget that the original, and all, Luddites are relatively high-tech. The original Luddites&#39; steel pitchforks and scythes were extremely high-tech, compared to stone tools. Every good Luddite is only against the next step of progress - the one that takes his job.
Sir,

Unless I am much mistaken the original Luddites objected to the industrial revolution, in particular within the textile industry. They saw the new machines as a threat to their jobs. Often they would destroy the machines in an attempt to save these jobs.

As I recall they would throw their wooden clogs into them, in an attempt to sabotage or destroy the looms.

The word has obviously taken new meaning, signifying anyone who is suspicious or afraid of change - new technology. However I believe this is the proper etymology.

I have the pleasure to remain, as ever, your humble and obedient servant.

[TIDE-HSV]

Sigh. :( Where to start? I took liberty with the Luddite story, but not complete liberty. Basically, I was describing the popular paintings from the early nineteenth century depicting them advancing on factories with scythes and pitchforks. Probably artists from London. In fact, they were the most highly skilled workers in the factories. It started with the cloth-finishers in Nottingham, and spread throughout the industrial belt of England, beginning in in 1811 and continuing on into 1812. They took over the factories at night, destroyed the steam looms and even murdered one mill owner, for which act fourteen hanged. The "sabot" story is a total canard, pardon my French. French workers did wear wooden clogs called "sabot," but they didn&#39;t toss them into machinery. (The actual Luddites were at least one generation away from wooden shoes). The metal strap which holds a railroad track to the tie is also called a "sabot." Striking French RR workers would clip the sabot, causing derailments. The term "sabotage" didn&#39;t enter the English language (on either side of the pond) until the first decade of the 20th century, or about 100 years after the era of the Luddites. Personally, I still prefer the pics of the Luddites advancing on factories, scythes drawn - now that&#39;s romantic.

[clocker]

Originally posted by TIDE-HSV@21 April 2003 - 17:30
Personally, I still prefer the pics of the Luddites advancing on factories, scythes drawn - now that&#39;s romantic.
You must have been a HUGE hit with the ladies. ;)

[Jibbler]

Let&#39;s approach this from a different perspective. 15 years ago, the death of cassettes was predicted due to the rise of compact discs. Basically, one format led to another. This is a simple business model, for which the record companies have already bought into. The next logical step is another new format, and filesharing is going to change the way we purchase music.

Consider for a minute, the money that would be saved by these production companies if they no longer had to produce CDs or cassettes. The operating costs of their business would drop significantly. No factories to produce the discs, no workers to employ, no utilities to maintain the buildings where the CDs are produced, etc. I think you get the idea. Its not only financially productive because of the drop in operating costs, but it will increase profit thru faster distribution.

I guess all of this is out of my hands. Too bad the RIAA is wasting resources fighting the end user, the very same person who created the industry which they represent.

[TIDE-HSV]

Jib, your thinking is on track, and you&#39;re not alone. Quite a few commentators, John Dvorak of PCMag comes to mind, have made precisely the same observation. Of course, the distribution pipeline also has its huge vested interests. It comes to mind that the largest manufacturer of CDs in the states is located here, from where I write. Then, there&#39;s Blockbuster, etc.

[clocker]

Originally posted by Jibbler@21 April 2003 - 17:50


I guess all of this is out of my hands. Too bad the RIAA is wasting resources fighting the end user, the very same person who created the industry which they represent.
At last&#33; After 50 posts in two different threads, Jib ole buddy, we agree on something&#33;

But, as you say,"Let&#39;s approach this from a different perspective".

The end use never "created" the industry, they simply provided revenue to ensure it&#39;s continued existence.
THAT&#39;s what has the RIAA/MPAA so hot and bothered- we, the end-user, figured out a way to cut them completely out of the loop. And it shouldn&#39;t take too much imagination to take the next step ( in fact some bands already have) which is for the artists to bypass the industry also. The same technology which has made it possible for us to steal the music has made it possible for almost anyone to produce it also. You can now go to Best Buy and get far better equipment than the Beatles ever had access to. Hell, your basic karioke box is more sophisticated than Sun Studios was.
Now you can see why the RIAA is fighting back so viciously and, as j2 says, so "scattershot". They don&#39;t care about ethics, nor the law, per se, they&#39;re fighting for their continued existence.
We may be sitting around in ten years time and the names of record companies will be a catagory in Trivial Pursuit. :P

[Blue_Seraphim]

What I want to know is: How many ppl would spend there money on these media files if you couldn&#39;t Download them????

In most cases I probably would not. :P

Any thoughts?

[j2k4]

Originally posted by TIDE-HSV@21 April 2003 - 16:18
Well, having been called away by the grubby necessity of living-making, I return to a virtual starburst of erudition. Who&#39;d ever have anticipated seeing "tautology" being discussed by common pirates? :rolleyes: First, j2, the term is yours to use freely. All you have to do is give me proper perpetual credit. :lol: Now, for "High-Tech Luddites." Let&#39;s not forget that the original, and all, Luddites are relatively high-tech. The original Luddites&#39; steel pitchforks and scythes were extremely high-tech, compared to stone tools. Every good Luddite is only against the next step of progress - the one that takes his job.
I would gladly give credit-even had it planned, but, alas, I no longer have space to spare as I&#39;ve changed my profile again.
I&#39;ll devote thought to a more totally inclusive description when possible.
I also have to confess my prior knowledge of the Luddites was sadly in arrears, but thanks to all here that is no longer true.

There has been much light shed upon the subject here at hand; the only base not covered is the speculative one. I have my opinion, but believe it to be intuitive only.
TIDE-HSV: Would you care to make a non-binding forecast? I need to baseline my own thoughts.

BTW-believe it or not, tautology was the word that popped into my head when my wife asked why I DL&#39;d so many studio/live, original/cover, different venue versions of the same songs-whem JmiF jumped up with it I flashed right to that moment (that this happened is of a significance I won&#39;t bore by explaining).

[Jibbler]

I would pay, no question, but only for unlimited downloads, a good graphic interface, and the ability to download full albums. Anything short of this, and they will collapse the p2p issue. Damn it clocker, I was hoping to go another 50 posts before we agree again. B) B)

[clocker]

Originally posted by Jibbler@21 April 2003 - 22:18
Damn it clocker, I was hoping to go another 50 posts before we agree again. B) B)
I&#39;m sure that can be arranged. ;)

[RealitY]

Originally posted by j2k4@21 April 2003 - 15:10
I am among the ignorant on this issue; my sense is, in the end, P2P will ultimately prevail, though we may have to somehow cloak our activity.
This seems to already exsist, a link I got here on this site and already use...
Filetopia (http://www.filetopia.com)
Check it out, p2p with encryption built in, to stop those such as your isp from trying to see your transfers. This is the new generation in p2p, make sure to change your security from the default 128 though, its small service now but I think it will grow&#33;&#33; :)

[Switeck]

Originally posted by JmiF@21 April 2003 - 10:22
You are making people criminals based on the fact that a large corporation lost a sale. Even thought the "felon" made no gain himself. That can´t be natural justice.
Um, there&#39;s no proof/guarentee that a large corporation lost a sale just because you downloaded a file.

You may buy the item it&#39;s derrived from (or already own it) or you may have no intention to buy that irregardless. That&#39;s like saying that listening to a song on the radio means you won&#39;t buy the CD... then again, considering what I&#39;ve heard on the radio lately that migth be true... :lol:

If the &#39;piracy losses&#39; were REAL/ACTUAL quantifiable or even reasonably estimateable losses, then companies could claim the losses just like losses from REAL theft and breakage (due to shipping). But being that these industries tell the public and the courts that millions/billions/trillions of &#036;&#39;s worth of piracy is going on but tell stockholders and government that they don&#39;t have those losses in their tax reports and company monthly reports says they&#39;re either lying to 1 group... or lying to us all&#33;

I have no interest in giving money to companies that are seeking to put me in jail for using p2p software...

[J'Pol]

Originally posted by Switeck+22 April 2003 - 08:47--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Switeck @ 22 April 2003 - 08:47)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin--JmiF@21 April 2003 - 10:22
You are making people criminals based on the fact that a large corporation lost a sale. Even thought the "felon" made no gain himself. That can´t be natural justice.
Um, there&#39;s no proof/guarentee that a large corporation lost a sale just because you downloaded a file.

You may buy the item it&#39;s derrived from (or already own it) or you may have no intention to buy that irregardless. That&#39;s like saying that listening to a song on the radio means you won&#39;t buy the CD... then again, considering what I&#39;ve heard on the radio lately that migth be true... :lol:

If the &#39;piracy losses&#39; were REAL/ACTUAL quantifiable or even reasonably estimateable losses, then companies could claim the losses just like losses from REAL theft and breakage (due to shipping). But being that these industries tell the public and the courts that millions/billions/trillions of &#036;&#39;s worth of piracy is going on but tell stockholders and government that they don&#39;t have those losses in their tax reports and company monthly reports says they&#39;re either lying to 1 group... or lying to us all&#33;

I have no interest in giving money to companies that are seeking to put me in jail for using p2p software... [/b][/quote]
You really do have to read the sentence you quoted within the context of the post which included it. Equally if not more importantly you would have to be aware of the post I was replying to. In essence all I was saying was that I found it absolutely staggering that the USA had decided to make file sharing a felony. Hence to criminalise someone with regard to a lost sale, where the alleged offender had made no pofit themselves.

Incidentally, whilst on the subject, though it would be difficult to prove that any particular file being downloaded resulted in a lost sale, the principal could be proven. If it could be shown to be relevant, probative and admissible then that could be led as evidence. I am sure that record companies could provide expert testimony to show that file sharing was causing lost sales.

I also think most juries, if invited to apply their common sense, would accept that file sharing resulted in lost sales to the record company.

[clocker]

Originally posted by JmiF@22 April 2003 - 12:11


I also think most juries, if invited to apply their common sense, would accept that file sharing resulted in lost sales to the record company.
Three cheers for the voice of reason&#33;&#33;&#33;

So many of the posts in the two threads that we&#39;ve dancing in and out of the past few days stubbornly refuse to admit this glaringly obvious fact.
The logical contortions, while fitfully amusing, that have been employed to justify/deny this fact all boil down to one primal scream...

"GIMME&#33; I WANNA&#33;"

You can make all the allegations of industry bloat, corruption, inefficiency and obsolescence that you care to and still not refute this one simple fact-we are stealing their product and they have the law on their side.

A pirate who thinks he&#39;s Robin Hood is, at best, a dilletante, and at worst, incarcerated.

Just this week 220 students at the Univ. of Pennsylvania lost their access to the internet because an "unnamed source" (nudge, nudge, wink, wink) informed the University that they were sharing copyrighted material. My source article did not state that anyone was indicted, just that the Uni had removed access to their broadband connections.

I think that the first step to being a successful criminal is admitting that you are a criminal. Only then will you adapt the mindset necessary to protect yourself and learn the survival skills needed to evade capture.

C&#39;mon folks, while you have your heads buried in the sand, preaching all this New Age malarkey about natural rights and "I don&#39;t recognize copyright law&#33;", etc., the powers that be are taking dead aim right at your ASS&#33;&#33;

Americans seem to be the preferred targets of opportunity for the nonce, but can you doubt that you will be next?

[TIDE-HSV]

I loved the comment of one of the PSU students: "One moment, I was online, and, the next moment - I wasn&#39;t."

[J'Pol]

I&#39;m sorry but I cant accept that infringement of copyright law is stealing. I am not saying that is is not illegal, it is an infringement of the relevant copyright law. However it is not stealing.

In the UK The Theft Act (1968 I believe)requires that you intend to permanently deprive the owner of the goods you steal. However I am never even taking their property, so I cannot be said to have stolen it. I am copying it. I may be depriving them of a potential sale, however I cannot se how I can steal that which is only potential.

In addition there are things which cannot, by definition, be stolen. The most quoted example is land. It is physically impossible to remove the land, therefore you cannot take it or permanently deprive it&#39;s owner of it. It cannot be stolen

I think the problem is that people intuitively know that they are doing something wrong and describe it in the easiest terms they can. They therefore describe it as stealing. I genuinely do not accept this.

Like I say I am not saying it is not an illegal act. Just that the crime is not theft.

[clocker]

Originally posted by TIDE-HSV@22 April 2003 - 14:14
I loved the comment of one of the PSU students: "One moment, I was online, and, the next moment - I wasn&#39;t."
I think he was paraphrasing Julius Rosenberg.

[Jibbler]

Originally posted by clocker@22 April 2003 - 15:08
we are stealing their product and they have the law on their side.
I guess this is precisely the point where this will all be hashed out (no pun intended). After the record company produced the CD, this is the end product. While its an interesting idea, and certainly a profitable one, you really can&#39;t restrict what people do with your product once its released and purchased. I mean, you can tell me that I can&#39;t copy it, but you really can&#39;t stop me.

Passing laws doesn&#39;t change any of this. The bottom line is that the format is fast becoming obsolete. This could be due to a number of reasons, you call it piracy, I call it competition and technology.

You cannot put an imaginary license on something and then expect people to respect it. The problem, in a nutshell, is that people do not recognize the difference between purchasing a Linkin Park CD, and purchasing a Compact Disc which contains copyrighted material by Linkin Park, which you are not allowed to duplicate or reproduce in any way. Like it or not, this "understanding" no longer becomes valid if you expect people to follow it on "good faith."

[Jibbler]

I guess what I&#39;m trying to say, is that you cannot hold me responsible for the flaws in your product or design. :blink:

[clocker]

Originally posted by JmiF@22 April 2003 - 14:39


Like I say I am not saying it is not an illegal act. Just that the crime is not theft.
I think we agree in the main, now we&#39;re down to picking nits.

[J'Pol]

Jibbler

Again what you are doing is using your common sense view of the world, added to your intuitive understanding to arrive at a concept of what is just and fair.

The law doesn´t give a fig about that. If you infringe copyright then that is an offence and you can be prosecuted for it. If it is a felony you can go to prison for it.

The only good thing is that it is a practical impossibility for law enforcement or the judicial system to do much about it. The scant resources are spent on looking for commercial pirates and the people who facilitate the copying.

Why prosecute 1,000,000 for using napster. Better to shut it down.

[J'Pol]

Originally posted by clocker+22 April 2003 - 21:45--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (clocker @ 22 April 2003 - 21:45)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin--JmiF@22 April 2003 - 14:39


Like I say I am not saying it is not an illegal act. Just that the crime is not theft.
I think we agree in the main, now we&#39;re down to picking nits. [/b][/quote]
We agree almost entirely.

In fact I think I am supporting your point. People don´t realise what they are supposed to be doing wrong. So they call it stealing.

However as you say it´s difficult to protect - defend yourself if you don´t understand what you are accused of.

[clocker]

Originally posted by Jibbler@22 April 2003 - 14:42
Like it or not, this "understanding" no longer becomes valid if you expect people to follow it on "good faith."
All law is predicated on the assumption that people will follow "on good faith".

Obviously, the best that a society can reasonably expect is that most of the time most people will follow most of the laws. The most flagrant offenders are rounded up and then made examples of for the edification of the rest of the herd.

We just happen to the lone doggies today.

[Jibbler]

Originally posted by JmiF@22 April 2003 - 15:48
Again what you are doing is using your common sense view of the world, added to your intuitive understanding to arrive at a concept of what is just and fair.
With all due respect, I see your point. However this isn&#39;t what is happening here. In this case, they produce music, and distribute it on disk. I buy the end product of that. Now, with the advancements in technology, people are exploiting the system and they are getting the music for free.

Now we have the RIAA lobbying to change the laws, to protect their investment. However their product was flawed from the beginning. They need to pool their resources to develop a new format/product/whatever in order to stay competitive.

Instead they are trying to punish the very same people who helped their business go from rags to riches. They used to call this "burning your bridges." Yes, this is a "common sense" approach, because despite all the legalities and logistics, this is how the majority of civilians approach life.

[TIDE-HSV]

Good catch, Clocker&#33; :) However, I think it was really probably spontaneous.

[clocker]

Originally posted by Jibbler@22 April 2003 - 15:25


Now we have the RIAA lobbying to change the laws, to protect their investment.
The RIAA is simply looking to extend the enforcement of laws that are already extant. They are also searching for a way to broaden the reach of law enforcement to deal with the global nature of the problem.

They&#39;ll figure it out.

[clocker]

Originally posted by TIDE-HSV@22 April 2003 - 15:53
Good catch, Clocker&#33; :) However, I think it was really probably spontaneous.
His utterance may well have been spontaneous.
Rosenberg&#39;s was posthumous.
Much higher degree of difficulty.

[clocker]

Originally posted by JmiF@22 April 2003 - 14:51


In fact I think I am supporting your point. People don´t realise what they are supposed to be doing wrong. So they call it stealing.

However as you say it´s difficult to protect - defend yourself if you don´t understand what you are accused of.
Actually J, you made my point better than I did.
The extra bit of clarification makes ALL the difference.

[J'Pol]

Originally posted by Jibbler+22 April 2003 - 22:25--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Jibbler @ 22 April 2003 - 22:25)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteBegin--JmiF@22 April 2003 - 15:48
Again what you are doing is using your common sense view of the world, added to your intuitive understanding to arrive at a concept of what is just and fair.
With all due respect, I see your point. However this isn&#39;t what is happening here. In this case, they produce music, and distribute it on disk. I buy the end product of that. Now, with the advancements in technology, people are exploiting the system and they are getting the music for free.

Now we have the RIAA lobbying to change the laws, to protect their investment. However their product was flawed from the beginning. They need to pool their resources to develop a new format/product/whatever in order to stay competitive.

Instead they are trying to punish the very same people who helped their business go from rags to riches. They used to call this "burning your bridges." Yes, this is a "common sense" approach, because despite all the legalities and logistics, this is how the majority of civilians approach life.[/b][/quote]
The only point I was making, badly, was that the law is for the most part detached from common sense. I wholly agree with your position. However if legislation is put in place that contradicts it then the law disagrees with our position and people who are doing something perfectly reasonable are branded as criminals.

The concept of Mens Rea (guilty knowledge) is probably the best way to describe it. What it means is that you knew that something was illegal. There is no requirement for you to feel that morally or ethically you were doing something wrong. Just that it was against the law. For offences (other than absolute offences) to take place then this Mens Rea must be proven. i.e. the person must know that they are breaking the law. They don&#39;t have to believe the law is fair or right, just that it exists.

Interestingly the guilty act is Actus Reus. (To think is feminine, to act is masculine)

[Jibbler]

Originally posted by JmiF@22 April 2003 - 17:03
The only point I was making, badly, was that the law is for the most part detached from common sense. I wholly agree with your position. However if legislation is put in place that contradicts it then the law disagrees with our position and people who are doing something perfectly reasonable are branded as criminals.
Yes, this is truly a problem, here in the states as well as abroad. Its a shame the politics and litagation is controlled by financial influence. Otherwise our laws might have been adapted differently to our culture. :)

[Switeck]

Originally posted by JmiF+22 April 2003 - 13:11--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (JmiF @ 22 April 2003 - 13:11)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>I also think most juries, if invited to apply their common sense, would accept that file sharing resulted in lost sales to the record company.[/b]I also think most juries, if invited to apply their common sense, would accept that letting friends &#39;borrow&#39; your music CDs and movies results in lost sales for music and movie studios even if those CDs, DVDs, and tapes are NOT copied.

And it&#39;s also why they want to plug the &#39;analog hole&#39;... to make THAT illegal too&#33;

There may come a day when, just like software activation schemes, that you can only listen to a song or watch a movie on your media center and you won&#39;t be able to share it with friends -- under penalty of law. It&#39;s already legal for media corporations to DO that, it&#39;s just not technologically possible.
Originally posted by -JmiF@22 April 2003 - 15:51

Originally posted by -clocker@22 April 2003 - 21:45

Originally posted by -JmiF@22 April 2003 - 14:39
Like I say I am not saying it is not an illegal act. Just that the crime is not theft.I think we agree in the main, now we&#39;re down to picking nits.We agree almost entirely.

In fact I think I am supporting your point. People don´t realise what they are supposed to be doing wrong. So they call it stealing.

However as you say it´s difficult to protect - defend yourself if you don´t understand what you are accused of.If we&#39;re going to pick nits, I&#39;d like to point out that what is illegal may not be morally wrong -- and vice-versa&#33; You&#39;ve basically stated this in other words, but I am adding this to put it more bluntly. With physical theft, there are far fewer gray areas -- but with &#39;intellectual property&#39; the concept of theft is very thorny indeed.<!--QuoteBegin--JmiF@22 April 2003 - 15:39
I&#39;m sorry but I cant accept that infringement of copyright law is stealing. I am not saying that is is not illegal, it is an infringement of the relevant copyright law. However it is not stealing.

In the UK The Theft Act (1968 I believe)requires that you intend to permanently deprive the owner of the goods you steal.[/quote]I agree, what we&#39;re accused of stealing isn&#39;t CDs and DVDs -- they&#39;re still in stores collecting dust because fewer people are buying them. What&#39;s really at stake is ideas and how they&#39;re being used.

"Thought crimes": RIAA is accusing us of stealing their ideas. But even that&#39;s not true, because we are just copying them -- not destroying/hiding the originals. So maybe we&#39;re just copying and misusing their ideas. Which is the reason why they want to outlaw even the most conservative form of &#39;fair use&#39;... because what they think is &#39;misuse&#39; is not what the law says -- even though they&#39;ve been actively rewriting the laws in THEIR favor for a VERY long time...

Copyrights and Patents make it possible to corner the market and even in extreme cases to have only 0% of it at the same time... (like out-of-print books/music/movies and "strategic" patents that exist only for use as a legal cudgel against anything vaguely resembling competition.)
It is the creation of artificial scarcity for the sake of making a profit.
Monopolists drool at such power&#33;

1984 (the book) mentioned how double plus ungood this is...

[MagicNakor]

Completely unrelated to the rest of the topic but for the last line in Switeck&#39;s post ;) :

I don&#39;t think it&#39;ll be very much longer before they actually do start cutting down the dictionary. Most people have abridged dictionaries nowadays. AOL-speak is becoming far far too common. So, I&#39;ll ask you this:

how r u?
a/s/l? omg&#33; lol&#33;
cu l8r

I have to stop now, or I&#39;ll start dropping my IQ. ;)

:ninja:

[TIDE-HSV]

I Qt 2

[clocker]

Originally posted by MagicNakor@22 April 2003 - 20:29


I have to stop now, or I&#39;ll start dropping my IQ. ;)

:ninja:
Doh&#33;

[Jibbler]

Originally posted by Switeck@22 April 2003 - 20:45
Copyrights and Patents make it possible to corner the market and even in extreme cases to have only 0% of it at the same time... (like out-of-print books/music/movies and "strategic" patents that exist only for use as a legal cudgel against anything vaguely resembling competition.)
It is the creation of artificial scarcity for the sake of making a profit.
Monopolists drool at such power&#33;
Great fucking post. I really like the part about "out of print" items. Disney is famous for this. In fact, I saw a commercial tonight where they mentioned Toy Story 1 and 2 will only be available for a short time, then they go back into the vault. The vault? What the fuck is that? Oh how I hate Disney. Disney does so much good, you can&#39;t say bad things about Disney. That nearly un-American&#33; :huh: :huh: ;)

[clocker]

Originally posted by Jibbler@22 April 2003 - 21:18
Oh how I hate Disney. Disney does so much good, you can&#39;t say bad things about Disney. That nearly un-American&#33; :huh: :huh: ;)
You seem conflicted this evening, Jibbler.

[TIDE-HSV]

Ah, the "Mouse." Having had a couple of kids work for the Mouse, I have a certain perspective on Disney and an intense dislike for Eisner. I still remember the look on his face when Charlie Gibson said he never thought he&#39;d be working for the "Mouse." He saw that Charlie got fired, but then he had to bring him back. I also remember his reminiscing with a childhood buddy (on TV) about their tough time growing up (in summer camps in the Catskills). Sherman Arnold, former Attorney General and Associate Justice of the Supreme Court, wrote in his book "Folklore of Capitalism," "The fruits of monopoly are not in vast profits, but rather in a sound sleep." Of course, if you&#39;re Gates or Eisner, I guess the vast profits can yield an even sounder sleep.

[Jibbler]

Originally posted by clocker+22 April 2003 - 22:44--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (clocker @ 22 April 2003 - 22:44)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin--Jibbler@22 April 2003 - 21:18
Oh how I hate Disney.&nbsp; Disney does so much good, you can&#39;t say bad things about Disney.&nbsp; That nearly un-American&#33; :huh:&nbsp; :huh:&nbsp; ;)
You seem conflicted this evening, Jibbler. [/b][/quote]
That was my rich sarcasm showing its evil head again. :D

[clocker]

Which explains why I&#39;m a insomniac... ;)


* damn it Jibbler&#33; you screwed up the post sequence&#33;*

[clocker]

Originally posted by Jibbler@22 April 2003 - 21:50

That was my rich sarcasm showing its evil head again. :D
Does your rich sarcasm have a sister?

[TIDE-HSV]

Isn&#39;t "Rich&#39;s Sarcasm" some form of cancer?

[clocker]

Originally posted by TIDE-HSV@22 April 2003 - 22:03
Isn&#39;t "Rich&#39;s Sarcasm" some form of cancer?
No, I think it&#39;s a place near the Grand Canyon..

[J'Pol]

I always thought Rich Sarcasm was a stand up comedian.

[j2k4]

Originally posted by JmiF@23 April 2003 - 02:13
I always thought Rich Sarcasm was a stand up comedian.
That would be Rich Little, who, to the best of my knowledge, is suffering neither from cancer nor, uh, crevasses. He may well be afflicted with tourists, though.

I can&#39;t speak to the sister issue.

[TIDE-HSV]

To add a little muddy water to the argument over the characterization of the deed of copying, etc., what&#39;s generally accepted, in the legal community, as what is being "stolen," is that the author, performer, etc., is being deprived of his/her "right" of sole distribution of the material. In fact, at common law, this is the underlying vein - deprivation of just and legal rights. If you take someone&#39;s auto, you&#39;ve not changed its form (unless you melt it down, I guess), but you have deprived the owner of his right of possession and control over the car. Same thing applied to land. In fact, at common law, the term used on the civil side is not "theft," but, rather, "conversion." "The miscreant converted the auto (land, etc.) to his own use."

[J'Pol]

Taking someones car is not even remotely analogous to copying a file. In the former you take the physical object and deprive the owner of it&#39;s use. In the latter you make a copy. However it is an elegantly specious arguement.

"Same thing applied to land". How do you take someones land. You may occupy it and deny them access or use, but you cannot remove it.

If they stick to the common law and civil at that, then pas de problem. Let them sue me.

[J'Pol]

And damn their eyes.

[TIDE-HSV]

Well, Jim, I failed badly in my explanation. The argument is neither specious nor mine. It is taught to freshman law students in every English-speaking land. "Taking" at common law is the deprivation of or interference with another person&#39;s rights over his property, whether it be real, personal or incorporeal. Most new law students run into the concept most abruptly in trying to understand intangible rights to do something upon or over someone else&#39;s land - easements, profits-a-prende, and the like. They bloody their noses trying to understand how refusing someone entry for something he has a legal right to do is a "taking." If they don&#39;t understand it, well, they&#39;re not around the next year. In the US, some students come to law school from an engineering undergrad backgroud. They seem to have the most trouble with it. At any rate, in the context in which we are discussing it, the "taking" is the interference with the rights of another. The truly &#39;specious" viewpoint is in thinking that nothing can be stolen which can&#39;t be gripped in the fingers, like an apple or a steering wheel.

[clocker]

Originally posted by TIDE-HSV@23 April 2003 - 17:48
At any rate, in the context in which we are discussing it, the "taking" is the interference with the rights of another. The truly &#39;specious" viewpoint is in thinking that nothing can be stolen which can&#39;t be gripped in the fingers, like an apple or a steering wheel.
&#39;Tis good to have a lawyer amongst us.

Much of this discussion seems to come to a screeching halt with the bold assersion "I didn&#39;t walk into a store and steal a cd so I can&#39;t be accused of theft".
Poppycock.
JmiF- in your continued insistance on using land as an example, i.e. "land can&#39;t be stolen, it&#39;s still there" aren&#39;t you aware that land can&#39;t be "owned" as well? You don&#39;t own the dirt, you purchase the right to use it.
To the law, such ephemeral concepts as "idea", "song" and the like hold just as much physical substance as "land", "automobile", etc.
I assume that TIDE will correct me if I&#39;m wrong.

[J'Pol]

"It is taught to freshman law students in every English-speaking land."

I honestly cannot believe that someone is saying this. Are you really telling me that you are au fait with the law in every English-speaking land, and that you are familiar with how it is taught.

I have encountered arrogance in my time. Frankly this takes the proverbial biscuit.

"The truly &#39;specious" viewpoint is in thinking that nothing can be stolen which can&#39;t be gripped in the fingers, like an apple or a steering wheel."

I didn&#39;t say that. You are just using the old trick of putting words in someone else&#39;s mouth in an attempt to make them look foolish. Thus reducing their credibility in order to win a point. Your behaviour is beneath contempt.

I have dealt with this in real life, I do not intend to deal with it in my leisure time.

You win, I lose. Congratulations.

[Jibbler]

Originally posted by clocker@23 April 2003 - 19:09
JmiF- in your continued insistance on using land as an example, i.e. "land can&#39;t be stolen, it&#39;s still there" aren&#39;t you aware that land can&#39;t be "owned" as well? You don&#39;t own the dirt, you purchase the right to use it.
To the law, such ephemeral concepts as "idea", "song" and the like hold just as much physical substance as "land", "automobile", etc.
I assume that TIDE will correct me if I&#39;m wrong.
With all due respect Clocker, the land concept seems a bit flawed. Don&#39;t we still practice law under the idea that "possession is 9/10 of the law?"

I know this concept is far to vague to be applied here, but ultimately, this comes down to physical tangible goods, or services. The right to profit from this material could be licenced and owned, but the material is tangible. Consider this example:

I apologize first for not having all the "detail" but I&#39;m sure you&#39;ll see where I&#39;m going with this. A video store in California was getting complaints about the movies available for rent in their stores. People were saying that there was too much violence, cursing, nudity, etc. So this store put together an editing crew and started editing the movies, essentially "removing" anything which they deemed offensive. When they were finished, they repackaged the movie, and made it available for rent and for purchase thru mail order as a "family oriented version" available for all ages to watch. Of course the MPAA was all over this one. As of now, they have NOT been shut down. However, the movies must be labeled with different packaging to indicate that they are not the "originals."

So if the studios won&#39;t produce the movies in a family friendly format, why can&#39;t another young businessman do it instead? :blink:

[clocker]

Originally posted by JmiF@22 April 2003 - 14:39
I&#39;m sorry but I cant accept that infringement of copyright law is stealing. I am not saying that is is not illegal, it is an infringement of the relevant copyright law. However it is not stealing.

In the UK The Theft Act (1968 I believe)requires that you intend to permanently deprive the owner of the goods you steal. However I am never even taking their property, so I cannot be said to have stolen it. I am copying it. I may be depriving them of a potential sale, however I cannot se how I can steal that which is only potential.

In addition there are things which cannot, by definition, be stolen. The most quoted example is land. It is physically impossible to remove the land, therefore you cannot take it or permanently deprive it&#39;s owner of it. It cannot be stolen

Ah, actually, JmiF that is EXACTLY what you said.

TIDE didn&#39;t need to put words into your mouth, you provided them.
Don&#39;t take your ball and go home just yet.

[J'Pol]

Originally posted by clocker+24 April 2003 - 01:29--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (clocker @ 24 April 2003 - 01:29)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin--JmiF@22 April 2003 - 14:39
I&#39;m sorry but I cant accept that infringement of copyright law is stealing. I am not saying that is is not illegal, it is an infringement of the relevant copyright law. However it is not stealing.

In the UK The Theft Act (1968 I believe)requires that you intend to permanently deprive the owner of the goods you steal. However I am never even taking their property, so I cannot be said to have stolen it. I am copying it. I may be depriving them of a potential sale, however I cannot se how I can steal that which is only potential.

In addition there are things which cannot, by definition, be stolen. The most quoted example is land. It is physically impossible to remove the land, therefore you cannot take it or permanently deprive it&#39;s owner of it. It cannot be stolen

Ah, actually, JmiF that is EXACTLY what you said.

TIDE didn&#39;t need to put words into your mouth, you provided them.
Don&#39;t take your ball and go home just yet. [/b][/quote]
Seriously, please enighten me, what did I say which supports the last arguement. I am at a loss.

[clocker]

Originally posted by Jibbler@23 April 2003 - 18:26


So if the studios won&#39;t produce the movies in a family friendly format, why can&#39;t another young businessman do it instead? :blink:
Your hypothetical entrepeneur is free to do so, of course.
What he CAN&#39;T do is alter someone else&#39;s film and then profit from the results.
I find that whole "family friendly" entertainment movement to be creepy anyway.
Next they&#39;ll want a "Family" rated version of Caligula.
Film will be 25 seconds long...

[J'Pol]

Originally posted by clocker+24 April 2003 - 01:09--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (clocker @ 24 April 2003 - 01:09)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin--TIDE-HSV@23 April 2003 - 17:48
At any rate, in the context in which we are discussing it, the "taking" is the interference with the rights of another.&nbsp; The truly &#39;specious" viewpoint is in thinking that nothing can be stolen which can&#39;t be gripped in the fingers, like an apple or a steering wheel.
&#39;Tis good to have a lawyer amongst us.

Much of this discussion seems to come to a screeching halt with the bold assersion "I didn&#39;t walk into a store and steal a cd so I can&#39;t be accused of theft".
Poppycock.
JmiF- in your continued insistance on using land as an example, i.e. "land can&#39;t be stolen, it&#39;s still there" aren&#39;t you aware that land can&#39;t be "owned" as well? You don&#39;t own the dirt, you purchase the right to use it.
To the law, such ephemeral concepts as "idea", "song" and the like hold just as much physical substance as "land", "automobile", etc.
I assume that TIDE will correct me if I&#39;m wrong. [/b][/quote]
I didn&#39;t say the dirt I said the land.

[clocker]

Originally posted by JmiF@23 April 2003 - 18:20


"The truly &#39;specious" viewpoint is in thinking that nothing can be stolen which can&#39;t be gripped in the fingers, like an apple or a steering wheel."

I didn&#39;t say that. You are just using the old trick of putting words in someone else&#39;s mouth in an attempt to make them look foolish. Thus reducing their credibility in order to win a point. Your behaviour is beneath contempt.


Ahem.

[J'Pol]

My continued insistance of using land as an example is based on one simple thing.

Where I come from it cannot be stolen. This is not a point open to debate. It is a fact. It is tried and tested.

[clocker]

Originally posted by JmiF@23 April 2003 - 18:41
My continued insistance of using land as an example is based on one simple thing.

Where I come from it cannot be stolen. This is not a point open to debate. It is a fact. It is tried and tested.
I&#39;ll bet that if I built a condo in your backyard you could find LOTS of legal casework re: theft.

[TIDE-HSV]

Jim, land can certainly be adversely possessed, which is lawyerese for theft of land. Certainly, in the broadest metaphysical sense neither land nor anything else can be either stolen or truly owned by man in his meager threescore and ten. All we can hope to do is to is to exercise dominion and control over it ephemerally. However, illegal interference with another&#39;s legal right is regarded as theft and the law characterizes it as such. As regards land, on the civil side, it&#39;s called "adverse possession." On the criminal side, it&#39;s called "criminal trespass." As for a copyright, it&#39;s called "infringement." In the eyes of the law, it&#39;s all the same - interference with the legal rights of another.

[Jibbler]

Originally posted by JmiF@23 April 2003 - 19:41
My continued insistance of using land as an example is based on one simple thing.

Where I come from it cannot be stolen. This is not a point open to debate. It is a fact. It is tried and tested.
We Americans (formerly you british), settled upon American soil and took this land from the Indians who were here (native americans we call them now). Of course, in those days we called it exploration. Today you might call it trespassing. Either way, lets stay on subject.

I&#39;ll bring up another point here, and JimF nailed this one dead to rights. All of this could come down to a simple debate regarding your local laws. This was once fought in court in the US in a similar instance. In the US, online gambling sites are considered illegal in many states due to your locals laws, even though the owners of these sites reside in an area where gambling is legal, such as the Bahamas. When it went to the courts, they determined that the "transaction" occured, not on your local computer, but in an offshore account where the transaction was legal. So thus today, we can gamble online in the US, even if local law doesn&#39;t allow it.

This could relate to filesharing in the same way. If the "transaction" or "filesharing" occurred in an area where it were legal, then the authorities wouldn&#39;t have jurisdiction to stop the crime. Unless of course, this "intellectual property" were stolen in "intellectual land." :huh: :huh: :huh: :huh: :huh: :huh:

[clocker]

Originally posted by Jibbler@23 April 2003 - 19:33


This could relate to filesharing in the same way. If the "transaction" or "filesharing" occurred in an area where it were legal, then the authorities wouldn&#39;t have jurisdiction to stop the crime. Unless of course, this "intellectual property" were stolen in "intellectual land." :huh: :huh: :huh: :huh: :huh: :huh:
Your complacency is touching.

The internet has proven to be a giant hassle for capitolism and it&#39;s response has been slow and scattershot but don&#39;t fool yourself. There is too much money at stake for this utopia to remain unfettered.
Current legislation in Colorado seeks to impose local sales tax on internet sales.
Internet gaming is a subject that lots of states are trying to restrict.
These people are not stupid, nor lazy. They have resources.
They WILL figure out how to bring the digital world into the realm of the corporeal one.
Your "intellectual land" concept may hold water today (I disagree), but it will wet your pants tomorrow.

[RealitY]

Originally posted by Jibbler@22 April 2003 - 22:25
Instead they are trying to punish the very same people who helped their business go from rags to riches. They used to call this "burning your bridges." Yes, this is a "common sense" approach, because despite all the legalities and logistics, this is how the majority of civilians approach life.
It is called desperation prior to the moment of extinction,
Although it also reminds of something I read...

It doesn&#39;t matter if companies get more than their fair share for the sales of commercial CDs and DVDs, and it doesn&#39;t matter whether you are outraged that the artists don&#39;t get the slice of income they deserve. You may be right beyond all argument. Nevertheless, civil disobedience against a company&#39;s greed is not effective when it is expressed through your own greed. The people of the Boston tea party dumped the tea so that nobody could use it. That made a much more powerful statement than if they had stolen the tea. Similarly, if you express your civil disobedience by stealing music, you are simply making it more likely that the system we&#39;ll end up with is worse than the one you&#39;re complaining about now.
We are all but THIEVES&#33;&#33;

I currently have a Router because it will block anyone from entering.
I also have the Privacy Patch on and use Peer Guardian.
I am curious about using a Bouncer and also using newer file sharing programs with Encryption built in.
I am currently hiring a local Midget to stand on my cable line and monitor for spOOks 24/7&#33;&#33;
We are negotiating his fee at the moment.
Any other suggestions?

:ph34r: HIDE AND HIDE WELL :ph34r:

[TIDE-HSV]

Good try, Jibbler. ;) I take it then that your Shared Folder is offshore someplace?

[TIDE-HSV]

I&#39;ve just had the opportunity to catch back up on this thread and read JmiF&#39;s most waspish retort about my comment on the universality of the way law is taught in the English-speaking lands. To elaborate, when I entered law school, and it&#39;s the same today, I did not start out studying American cases. I started by studying the oldest written English cases, since they form the basis of the law in the US, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, etc. All lads starting law school in those lands start the same way. For the first year, that&#39;s all I studied. I would think that JmiF, apparently not knowing this, would find it flattering. Rather, he finds it arrogant??? Well, go figure. Anyway, these priniciples - adverse possesion of land, conversion of tangible and intangible property, and the like, are universal in the common law lands (countries taking the origin of their laws from Great Britain) - whether JmiF thinks they are or not.

[Jibbler]

Originally posted by TIDE-HSV@23 April 2003 - 21:20
Good try, Jibbler. ;) I take it then that your Shared Folder is offshore someplace?
I wish it were, but alas, I&#39;m an American. I don&#39;t use peer guardian, nor do I use the privacy patch. I&#39;ve been sharing files for almost 10 years, with no end in sight. I&#39;m just pointing out some of the many "exploits" of the internet, and how weird things seem to get when it comes to the courtroom. We are all swimming in uncharted water. Sure there is an occasional shark, but mostly, we&#39;re safe.

[TIDE-HSV]

Our problem is that the RIAA and MPAA are right here in the country with us. I do think they will continue to rachet up the pressure on the broadband ISPs. Comcast has decided to cave, and they are the biggest. I applaude Verizon&#39;s pluck in resisting. It&#39;ll be interesting to see how that comes out. Meanwhile, they&#39;ll continued to push the soft and hardware solutions also. Maybe we&#39;ll still find a way. Our brethren overseas aren&#39;t as safe as they think, certainly not those in Europe. It&#39;s going to be interesting to watch.

[clocker]

Originally posted by Jibbler+23 April 2003 - 20:30--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Jibbler @ 23 April 2003 - 20:30)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin--TIDE-HSV@23 April 2003 - 21:20
Good try, Jibbler.&nbsp; ;)&nbsp; I take it then that your Shared Folder is offshore someplace?
I wish it were, but alas, I&#39;m an American. I don&#39;t use peer guardian, nor do I use the privacy patch. I&#39;ve been sharing files for almost 10 years, with no end in sight. I&#39;m just pointing out some of the many "exploits" of the internet, and how weird things seem to get when it comes to the courtroom. We are all swimming in uncharted water. Sure there is an occasional shark, but mostly, we&#39;re safe. [/b][/quote]
Haven&#39;t you noticed that lately the birthrate of the sharks seems to have risen?

[Jibbler]

Originally posted by clocker+23 April 2003 - 21:41--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (clocker @ 23 April 2003 - 21:41)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>
Originally posted by -Jibbler@23 April 2003 - 20:30
<!--QuoteBegin--TIDE-HSV@23 April 2003 - 21:20
Good try, Jibbler. ;)&nbsp; I take it then that your Shared Folder is offshore someplace?
I wish it were, but alas, I&#39;m an American. I don&#39;t use peer guardian, nor do I use the privacy patch. I&#39;ve been sharing files for almost 10 years, with no end in sight. I&#39;m just pointing out some of the many "exploits" of the internet, and how weird things seem to get when it comes to the courtroom. We are all swimming in uncharted water. Sure there is an occasional shark, but mostly, we&#39;re safe.
Haven&#39;t you noticed that lately the birthrate of the sharks seems to have risen? [/b][/quote]
The smell of blood is attracting more sharks. This can&#39;t be good. :huh: Good thing more people are taking up swimming by the day. B)

[Jibbler]

Originally posted by TIDE-HSV@23 April 2003 - 21:39
Our problem is that the RIAA and MPAA are right here in the country with us. I do think they will continue to rachet up the pressure on the broadband ISPs. Comcast has decided to cave, and they are the biggest. I applaude Verizon&#39;s pluck in resisting. It&#39;ll be interesting to see how that comes out.
I said it once before. Verizon is just big enough to bring this entire controvery to an abrupt end. Just yesterday, CNN reported that the Justice Dept was backing the RIAA in its case against Verizon. This court case is still pending, but it will probably be the one that changes the industry. ;)

[TIDE-HSV]

Let&#39;s keep our fingers crossed. Our present Supreme Court would favor the RIAA, 5-4.

[j2k4]

I&#39;ve not done so much reading without the urge to jump in; you guys are kicking the pig bald AND flat-Wow&#33;
It does seem, though, that Tide has to be given the nod, here: He IS undeniably the expert (assuming he is not lying about his livelihood) by virtue of the fact of his status as an attorney practicing in the same country wherein the RIAA, et.al., are trying to throttle P2P. He obviously has considered the situation in it&#39;s entirety, and has very graciously offered the coin of HIS realm for free, in the truest spirit of P2P.
It matters not a whit that some of us are not in the U.S.; we may righteously disagree on such things as the war, but the leading-edge events (precedents) as regards our "thievery" will take shape HERE, and emanate accordingly.
Tide is trying to educate, here-he&#39;s telling us what "IT" is-THAT is the reality; the eventuallity may be different, but it IS what it IS, from a legal point of view.

Now Tide, you don&#39;t really need JmiF&#39;s "proverbial biscuit" do you? Give it back...... :P

[TIDE-HSV]

Jim&#39;s problem is - I hope - mostly semantic. I sometimes wish, if I were going to share this much publicly, that I had used a different nick. Not only can most of you Yanks puzzle out where I went to college, but you can also figure out where I probably live. :( On top of that, the handle itself is instantly recognizable to literally thousands of people, should they happen on this site.

[j2k4]

Originally posted by TIDE-HSV@23 April 2003 - 22:59
Jim&#39;s problem is - I hope - mostly semantic. I sometimes wish, if I were going to share this much publicly, that I had used a different nick. Not only can most of you Yanks puzzle out where I went to college, but you can also figure out where I probably live. :( On top of that, the handle itself is instantly recognizable to literally thousands of people, should they happen on this site.
I could be prosecuted for this :D , but don&#39;t muck about-change your I.D., and do it now-just PM one of us first, huh? :ph34r:

[TIDE-HSV]

Probably a little late after 240 posts, but I am being a little more careful in what I say about my personal habits. :lol:

[j2k4]

Originally posted by TIDE-HSV@23 April 2003 - 23:17
Probably a little late after 240 posts, but I am being a little more careful in what I say about my personal habits. :lol:
If you say so.

Clocker and I have decided to offer you a long-term contract, however, we don&#39;t have any boilerplate-know a good lawyer? :lol: :lol: :lol:

[RealitY]

Well all kidding aside I do not think anyone is going to be knocking at my door (ever), though I am not interested in getting any letters or denial of service.

In the days of Napster it seemed a different issue to me (as it seems to Jb), but as time goes on I am obliged to agree with law here and I am not very impressed with those who reside in our community. Unfortunate, and loud examples are those such as TMD who sit in a theater (possibly during a screening) with a video cam (clearly for the purpose of distribution) or those who have created files such as winxp+crack.exe (what is legal or even morally ok about this). What do we think will follow (more laws robbing our freedom)? If it were legally to be proven ok, then what do we think will follow (seems to be a slight sense of chaos and looting, which we are already participating in)?

Jb stated their technology is flawed (I figure this only applies to music), this may be true, and they will and are already finding new technology such as the Palladium chip (this scares me) to turn the tables. Truly the Industry has much at stake here, as they are to become a dinosaur if artist begin to distribute their material directly to the consumer (this has already begun).

Also, If you wish say to that your sharing copyright material does not earn you a profit, well it is clear that KaZaa has made millions in advertising , though legally you cannot connect the two (the pocet book of Kazaa and your sharing). Although I do think having millions of users at the other end of your p2p software clearly defines distribution.

Truly now our Freedom is at stake derived from the necessity of greed in us all. Again from those that Video Cam to those that Crack or to you and I we are all the same, Thieves. How can anyone here truly justify any of this? True, JimF, maybe we should not make criminals of those who share, but then what, a fine? It is a crime and so we are to be treated as we act.

My deepest concerns lay with the DCMA and its apparent interpretation, thus possibly giving holders of copyright material more power than the FBI. I am personally thinking of recording a cd about taking a shit so that via the DCMA I can freely and without a court order invade the blond chicks privacy down the street based on the fact that she may be sharing my copyrighted material (shit). The DCMA is an ugly beast, absurd, and needs to be put to rest or modified. Maybe the law man here, Tide, could suggest what course can, and possibly will be taken to do so. It worries me greatly that at the cost of sharing some files, this ammunition could lead to the loss of some of my freedom and privacy.

[nahan]

If you think about it they are chassing the wrong people.

They should have made laws years ago preventing sony pioneer tdk whoever from making the hardware so readily availible ,then this situation wouldnt gotten so out of hand.
It takes years to get laws passed,they should have started this when the first cd burner hit the market for consumers.
Now they gotta deal with dvd burners hahahaha

[RealitY]

Originally posted by nahan@24 April 2003 - 07:34
If you think about it they are chassing the wrong people.

They should have made laws years ago preventing sony pioneer tdk whoever from making the hardware so readily availible ,then this situation wouldnt gotten so out of hand.
It takes years to get laws passed,they should have started this when the first cd burner hit the market for consumers.
Now they gotta deal with dvd burners hahahaha
How could you though make laws to stop technology.

One item I agree with Jb on is that the industry must redefine themselves or they will become obsolete,
though it may even be to late.

I will say given the power of foresight they should have gone after Napster on different grounds rather than focusing on it being a centralized system (though I&#39;m not sure what would have set a strike then which would have carried on to now), as now decentralized systems such as KaZaa are a complete phantom to them&#33; Though I guess the statement against a centralized system is the control over (illegal) content. Though again having more forsight they would have been better off keeping Napster alive and implementing the filters a centralized system could offer, and possibly the industry could have even stareted a pay for dl structure back then, thus maybe (probably not) leading us down a different road. Instead they have only managed to create a newer and larger monster that is much more slippery. Which leads me to believe that is why they have given up chasing the ghost of p2p (for the most part, as will come another) and are now focused on campuses, large fish and even you and I the end user via the &#33;@#&#036;%^&*() DCMA, piece of crap.

[nahan]

I understand its a hard thing to do but the results would have been much greater.
Example drug paraphernalia against the law, but it took time to make those laws.
Cd copiers and the later such should of been kept away from the likes of you and me and the general public not only that software that enables you to make mp3 and personal cds and the general public .At this point it cant be controlled any longer.

[RealitY]

Originally posted by nahan@24 April 2003 - 09:00
I understand its a hard thing to do but the results would have been much greater.
Example drug paraphernalia against the law, but it took time to make those laws.
Where, I can buy a bong if I wanted to, I just couldn’t mention what I am going to use it for.
So then I guess I would still be able to buy a cd-r but say it’s for my data.
This would not have worked as we are talking about technology. Imagine how stifling it would be not even to back up your own data in the namesake of saving the Industry, F**K them. It would NEVER have happened&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33; Besides your talking about an industry that tried to stop Betamax, VHS, DAT, and ohhhh also P2P.... hahahaha.

[nahan]

I didnt make my point clear enough.
They would be better off going after companies that make these products that allow us to these things.
And therefor those companies would have to limit the capibilities of their product.

Instead of dancing around the subject years ago,they should have looked at the bigger picture.But the never could even fathom that a collage student could or would for that matter, write a program that would change the face of the media/entertainment world as we once knew it and now interact in it today.

Dont get me wrong information should be free ,and Im on your side.
The fact of the matter is the users here are nicknames without faces and are near impossible to prosecute.The manufactorers have an identity we do not possess.
A needle in a haystack

[clocker]

Originally posted by nahan@24 April 2003 - 05:19

The fact of the matter is the users here are nicknames without faces and are near impossible to prosecute.
You should be aware of the fact that your personal identity is irrelevant to these people. Your digital address is all they need.

[RealitY]

Originally posted by clocker@24 April 2003 - 14:51
You should be aware of the fact that your personal identity is irrelevant to these people. Your digital address is all they need.
Which leads me to my unaswered question...
How can you block or mask your ip, does a router do this?
Or...

[TIDE-HSV]

It may mask, through, NAT, your particular machine IP, if you have a LAN. But, if your machine accepts the connection, and they see what they want in your MSF, then they have the IP of your router, which is given out by your ISP. Whether this is given out dynamically - every time you log on - or statically (obviously an easier target), the IP can be traced back to your ISP. The only answer is to block incoming IPs that are known to be used by snoopers or ranges of IPs that may be. Peer Guardian is good, but even better is to copy those ranges into a stout firewall like ZA Pro or Syquest Pro. That&#39;s what I&#39;ve done. Syquest is a little easier to work with mechanically in importing the IPs. Is this clear as mud? :blink:

[Switeck]

I think the legal phrase and words everyone else is arguing over is &#39;theft of services&#39; -- that is basically what copying a song/movie boils down to. They offer content on their conditions and terms, not ours. To take that content on any other terms is &#39;theft of services&#39;.

However, there are many gray areas and legal areas under the law where some copyrighted content can be shared either due to the artist allowing it and (for small parts/critique purposes/criticism) even without the artist&#39;s consent. The concepts of fair use, freedom of speech, and freedom of the press also can take precendence over copyrights -- depending on the circumstances.

BUT, it has been proven with the music industry that they have been illegally price-fixing CDs for years. And Napster made the novel claim that the music industry should/has lost the copyrights due to illegal monopolistic practices. The case was settled/dropped before that issue could be decided -- but considering how dirty RIAA members have been, it&#39;s not to be dismissed lightly.

But IMO, although MP3s can be reasonably high quality they are NOT and should not be considered an exact copy of music... certainly not at 64k anyway&#33; (That value is what regular Kazaa used to limit MP3 quality to.) The same is even more true of movies which are &#39;butchered&#39; by horribly lossy video codecs. If distributing them is illegal, perhaps so too should the distribution of fakes with the same name -- because they&#39;re not exact copies either but still &#39;infringe&#39; on a copyrighted work if you believe all the legal bull certain companies are spewing.

On the other hand, the case of CD isos (even music CDs) and game/program installers is one of exact copying.

p2p file sharing is what happens when freedom of the press is taken to a literal extreme.

[TIDE-HSV]

Switeck, I&#39;d like to encourage you in your analysis, but I cant&#39;. I&#39;ll ask a couple of questions. Do you think the right of the copyright holder should depend on how good a copy you can make, since this is entirely within your control? Do you think a court would buy the defense - "Your honor, you gotta let me go. My copy is nowhere near as good as his original." Further, on the "monopoly defense" - Microsoft stands convicted of monopolistic practices - not just accused as Napster claimed of the RIAA members. Do you think a court would take seriously your claim that the court should allow you to copy any of their software you wish - because they are a monopoly? Just things to ponder.

[Jibbler]

Originally posted by REALITY@24 April 2003 - 00:50
If it were legally to be proven ok, then what do we think will follow (seems to be a slight sense of chaos and looting, which we are already participating in)?

This is actually the best definition that I&#39;ve seen yet. We aren&#39;t stealing, or filesharing, we are digitally looting until Big Brother comes to enforce the law of the land. B)

[TIDE-HSV]

In any looting scene, it profits one to be fleet afoot. Remember the old bear joke? Two guy being chased and one stops to put on his sneakers. The other says "You can&#39;t out run a bear in those." The reply - "I don&#39;t have to out run the bear. All I&#39;ve got to out run is you."

[RealitY]

Originally posted by Jibbler+25 April 2003 - 02:07--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Jibbler @ 25 April 2003 - 02:07)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin--REALITY@24 April 2003 - 00:50
If it were legally to be proven ok, then what do we think will follow (seems to be a slight sense of chaos and looting, which we are already participating in)?

This is actually the best definition that I&#39;ve seen yet. We aren&#39;t stealing, or filesharing, we are digitally looting until Big Brother comes to enforce the law of the land. B) [/b][/quote]
Amen, enjoy. I think we will be here alot longer than they care to believe.

[Switeck]

Originally posted by TIDE-HSV@24 April 2003 - 16:09
Do you think a court would buy the defense - "Your honor, you gotta let me go.&nbsp; My copy is nowhere near as good as his original."Good call, and probably 100% correct on the legal analysis that it wouldn&#39;t be wise to use the imperfect copy defense and/or the monopoly claim. Better to just throw yourself on the mercy of the court and hope whoever brought the case to trial doesn&#39;t want to make an &#39;example&#39; out of you...

However, THEY have been arguing that they&#39;re faced with pirates making perfect digital copies of their works.
And THEY are asserting that the major cause of their economic pain is US&#33;
They use CD burners also as a leading cause for their pain and cite the blank cd sales increases relative to cd music sales as proof.
And the evidence they are offering is quite possibly &#39;cooked&#39; the same way ENRON and Microsoft did accounting...

http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=9048


What&#39;s worse, they&#39;re QUITE good at it -- because they&#39;ve gotten a few die-hard &#39;music pirates&#39; convinced that WE really are giving them hell due to our lawlessness&#33;

Here&#39;s some other stuff they&#39;ve been up to:

ClearChannel takeover of radio
DVD CSS (you probably know it better as DeCSS)
enforced CD pricing schemes forced on comercial retailers/resellers
extra-legal hacking rights to attack, disable, remove, or destroy any computer found (illegaly?) hosting copyright materials
New legal bans on the use of anonymizers online in many states -- before making it into a federal law...
audio CD copyprotection attempts

Are ALL part of a concerted, well-planned effort to gain control over us in every way possible.

And we are playing right into their hands&#33;
RIAA website attacks by &#39;unknown hackers&#39;...multiple times, piracy reports, p2p useage rise, insanely publicized piracy court cases, rampant internet porn (especially on p2p networks which cannot be blocked by current Net Nanny-style software), and even computer viruses (often prevalent on p2p networks) furthers public sentiment that hackers/p2p pirates are anarcho-comunists bent on wrecking the US economy that need to be stopped AT ALL COSTS.

And even though we are &#39;the enemy&#39;, we buy into the sentiment like dumb sheep&#33;
We think we&#39;re &#39;putting a dent&#39; in their coffers, increasing both our numbers and legal support, and semi-immune through our faceless numbers (&#39;the probability I&#39;m busted is really low&#39; mentality).

The fact of the matter is, ALL our supposed piracy will NOT stop them -- it will only embolden them. They get their sales through business deals with resellers who can count on SOME business virtually regardless of how bad the economy or file sharing gets. And their profit markup on music CDs is high enough that the amount they need to sell to survive is ridiculously below the amount they have to sell before they claim a profit. They can and are able to further milk artists for &#39;megahits&#39; that will yield them the biggest profits for the lowest overhead/risk. They have a LONG list of career politicians who they can count on to come to their aid -- many of whom are afraid of new technology even in principle and almost luddites in practice. All of whom are convinced that a better economy comes by better (read: MORE) regulations... And we are what needs to be regulated&#33;

HOW the heck are we going to fight forces that even Bill Gates has to sometimes give into their demands?&#33;
(By this I mean the inclusion of Pallidium, unique identifiers, dot.net, even current windows rights management into consumer Windows OSes.)
Remember the Intel cpu identifier fiasco? WORSE has been slipped in under our noses&#33;

There&#39;s only a short list of capital crimes which has no statute of limitations... intellectual piracy/copyright infringement is quickly becoming one of them with the extensions of patents and copyrights laws and durations. That evil mouse (mentioned earlier) has gotten copyrights extended to nearly 100 years from time of issuance for a corporation... and they&#39;re still asking for more. Computer hacking now carries a potential life imprisonment -- and guess who defines what computer hacking is? (hint: it isn&#39;t us.) But the creation of p2p tools and software, especially ones that can have a negative effect on a network, might qualify... or will qualify after some law &#39;clarifications&#39;.

We can&#39;t fight them in the courts anymore -- what&#39;s more, I&#39;m not sure we ever could. We can&#39;t fight them directly by endorsing politicians, as the voting public generally already considers OUR support as a black mark. And we&#39;re currently doing pretty badly in the &#39;court of public opinion&#39;.

[RealitY]

Originally posted by TIDE-HSV@24 April 2003 - 21:29
It may mask, through, NAT, your particular machine IP, if you have a LAN. But, if your machine accepts the connection, and they see what they want in your MSF, then they have the IP of your router, which is given out by your ISP. Whether this is given out dynamically - every time you log on - or statically (obviously an easier target), the IP can be traced back to your ISP. The only answer is to block incoming IPs that are known to be used by snoopers or ranges of IPs that may be. Peer Guardian is good, but even better is to copy those ranges into a stout firewall like ZA Pro or Syquest Pro. That&#39;s what I&#39;ve done. Syquest is a little easier to work with mechanically in importing the IPs. Is this clear as mud?&nbsp; :blink:
Guess I need to call my Cable company and ask where they stand on this.

Two addition questions...

1. How much value does the "Remove Local IP&#39;s From .DAT" option carry in the KL Options.
I have used DatView and when clicking the "eye" on the right you can see the IP&#39;s of anyone you DL from (never got a blank one yet).
I guess this means that if this option is checked, then others would not see mine, though I would imagine this does not mask on any level larger than being seen through DatView or the like?

2. TIDE-HSV, I was very serious in the question I posed to you HERE (http://www.klboard.ath.cx/bb/index.php?act=ST&f=13&t=28728&st=135) at the top of Page 10 (last paragraph)

My deepest concerns lay with the DCMA and its apparent interpretation, thus possibly giving holders of copyright material more power than the FBI. I am personally thinking of recording a cd about taking a shit so that via the DCMA I can freely and without a court order invade the blond chicks privacy down the street based on the fact that she may be sharing my copyrighted material (shit). The DCMA is an ugly beast, absurd, and needs to be put to rest or modified. Maybe the law man here, Tide, could suggest what course can, and possibly will be taken to do so. It worries me greatly that at the cost of sharing some files, this ammunition could lead to the loss of some of my freedom and privacy.

On another note I read somewhere that simply by having your IP and Port your SF can be viewed due to how KaZaa functions. Example type http://localhost:1214/ (substitut your port if different as the default is 1214, KL running). I am curious how to get to the end result as this may even bypass the privacy patch.

Again, given serious thought I have considered changing my Handle to :ph34r: PARANOID :ph34r: (haha).

[nahan]

Hey im runnig enough firewall tech to keep people out .
So im not worried at all.

[chloe_cc2002]

"possession is 9/10 of the law?"

Ownership though is always intangible. Ever heard of equity&#39;s darling. He may dispossess because he purchases for value without notice of any prior titleholder whose title is tainted by some malfeasance.

[chloe_cc2002]

"possession is 9/10 of the law?"

Ownership though is always intangible. Ever heard of equity&#39;s darling. He may dispossess because he purchases for value without notice of any prior titleholder whose title is tainted by some malfeasance.

[chloe_cc2002]

The concept of permanent deprivation brings back all those amusing cases as to what constitutes an intent to permanently deprive a person of their property....eg the restaurant cases..where the patron sits down to a meal and does a runner....it is all a bit stale now.

My other half (american) found the concept of intent to permanently deprive strange and couldn&#39;t get his mind around it, given that conversion is generally not a crime in the US.

[RealitY]

Originally posted by Switeck@25 April 2003 - 06:42
Are ALL part of a concerted, well-planned effort to gain control over us in every way possible.

And we are playing right into their hands&#33;
RIAA website attacks by &#39;unknown hackers&#39;...multiple times, piracy reports, p2p useage rise, insanely publicized piracy court cases, rampant internet porn (especially on p2p networks which cannot be blocked by current Net Nanny-style software), and even computer viruses (often prevalent on p2p networks) furthers public sentiment that hackers/p2p pirates are anarcho-comunists bent on wrecking the US economy that need to be stopped AT ALL COSTS.
My deepest concerns in a nutshell.
I think the choice was Privacy or Piracy, though I think we longer can even choose the way things lOOk and given the actions we have taken. On the other hand I feel that even though we are seen as Thieves (currently accepted at large), hopefully many will still say NO at the invasion of our Privacy in namesake to stop us. Many times our freedoms have been threatened and undermined, while cloaked by the necessity to eliminate the bogeyman (us). Let&#39;s hope those at hand don&#39;t truly believe we are that large of a threat to take our rights, while giving them an exorbitant amount of power in the name of a dollar&#33;&#33;

[TIDE-HSV]

Sorry, Reality, I didn&#39;t realize there were dangling questions. On connection, once they&#39;ve connected, they know your IP. IF you have the privacy patch, then they can&#39;t see the remainder of MSF. However, they can still tell that you have the film/mp3 that they are DLing from you at the moment. I think the best thing we can do is to write our congressmen. Don&#39;t laugh - it actually works. Go to http://www.anti-dmca.org/ for help in formulating what you want to write. So far, most legislators are only getting input from the RIAA/MPAA. And, Chloe, good luck on explaining the intangible nature of ownership - you&#39;ll need it.

[RealitY]

Originally posted by REALITY@24 April 2003 - 06:50
The DCMA is an ugly beast, absurd, and needs to be put to rest or modified. Maybe the law man here, Tide, could suggest what course can, and possibly will be taken to do so.
Well perhaps I can answer my own question somewhat as I had not given this much thougt...

Verizon&#39;s claim is that the subpoena violates the requirements of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act. The company maintains that the Act only applies to files hosted on an Internet company&#39;s network and not on the computer in a subscriber&#39;s home or office.
I&#39;ll buy that. Then Verizon goes on to say...

"Verizon feels very strongly that the privacy, safety and due process rights of hundreds of thousands -- or perhaps millions -- of Internet subscribers hang in the balance of the court&#39;s decision," said John Thorne, senior vice president and deputy general counsel for Verizon, in a statement.
Shit if these guys sold beans, toilet paper, or soda, then I&#39;de be farting all day and wiping my ass with fluffy VerizonTP while sucking down VCola to the happy belch of someone supporting the real issue at hand, our FREEDOM.
Cheers to the guys at Verizon&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33; :D

Oh, and for those at Comcast well... :angry:
I wouldn&#39;t take a free promtional blow job from a Playboy Bunny if you were giving them out (well maybe, anyway...).
You &#33;@#&#036;%^&*() F**kin&#39; Commy Pussies&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33; <_<