More Powerful Than The Government?

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

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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...

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's what I've done. Syquest is a little easier to work with mechanically in importing the IPs. Is this clear as mud? :blink:

I think the legal phrase and words everyone else is arguing over is 'theft of services' -- 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 'theft of services'.

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'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'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! (That value is what regular Kazaa used to limit MP3 quality to.) The same is even more true of movies which are 'butchered' by horribly lossy video codecs. If distributing them is illegal, perhaps so too should the distribution of fakes with the same name -- because they're not exact copies either but still 'infringe' 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.

Switeck, I'd like to encourage you in your analysis, but I cant'. I'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.

Quote:

---

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've seen yet. We aren't stealing, or filesharing, we are digitally looting until Big Brother comes to enforce the law of the land. B)

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't out run a bear in those." The reply - "I don't have to out run the bear. All I've got to out run is you."

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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;.