Printable View
Apples to Oranges my friend. Performing a song, in front of a croud, for profit, is different than sharing a file over the internet. No one is profiting from the filesharing here. [/QUOTE]
I think their point is an intangible "loss profit".
Anyhow I think it is clear KaZaa has made millions.
Which always reminds me...
Free sells, and those who can sell free get rich.
Ah, but is "loss of projected revenue" really amount to anything? I mean, how can they put a price on an imagined profit?
If they could put a price on this "imaginary figure", there is no logical relation between filesharing and loss of profit. I've had Linkin Park's new CD on my drive for quite some time. Yesterday, I bought the CD. Now they have my money. I'm still trying to find out how sharing the files makes me responsible for their loss.
"Loss of projected revenue" will amount to whatever they can convince a jury to give them.Quote:
Originally posted by Jibbler@21 April 2003 - 17:39
Ah, but is "loss of projected revenue" really amount to anything? I mean, how can they put a price on an imagined profit?
If they could put a price on this "imaginary figure", there is no logical relation between filesharing and loss of profit. I've had Linkin Park's new CD on my drive for quite some time. Yesterday, I bought the CD. Now they have my money. I'm still trying to find out how sharing the files makes me responsible for their loss.
Bully for you. YOU bought the Linkin Park CD. Can you say the same for the hundreds(?) of people that you allowed to dl it from your harddrive?
I thought not.
That's a good question Clocker, and that's my point. There is no way to determine if the people who download and share files are actually purchasing any less than they did before.
More importantly, I have the songs, no CD case, no liner notes, no lyrics, no parental advisary. I guess you could say that when I share the files, I'm sharing a "barebones" version of the CD. Naturally, if I could walk into Record Town and purchase just the disk, nothing else, then they would sell it for cheaper right? Doubt it. :huh: :huh:
Its not really a loss unless the store keeps some record of who purchases what, and when..
Of course there is!Quote:
Originally posted by Jibbler@21 April 2003 - 17:58
That's a good question Clocker, and that's my point. There is no way to determine if the people who download and share files are actually purchasing any less than they did before.
Industry sales records show a 20 something% drop in sales in the last two years.
You/we give their product away!
A first year law student would have us breaking rocks in Sing Sing in about a half an hour!
wow i never thought i would get this much response, it was just a piece of crap that entered my head and made me think so i thought i would write it down.Quote:
Originally posted by WebCheF@21 April 2003 - 05:00
There is no law with a copy of protected media, just law to prohibit the use of it for a profit, such as entertainment at a club, dj's, bands, distributers, and publicly displaying the content for a fee.
Not to share, but you can't share media that has not been released. such as movies, songs, and inteligence.
I mean we do have radio's and tv's that we can collect this from also, but it is not illegal. so long as there is no motive for profit.
But the difinitive thing with a ripped song is money.
You are allowed believe it or not to make a working back up copy of anything like tape/vhs/dvd/mp3 etc etc as long as 1) you own the origenal and 2) if the origenal is lost/stolen/sold/broken?? (not sure since that was the point in some cases of making th bakup so the origenal was safe) and if it is then you are to destroy the back up copy forthwit.
You are only alowed to make 1 working back up copy, count it one!
so if you have 1000+ mp3s and someone downloads them, YOU are technically making a copy for them and sending it to them. and if u dl a song u are making a copy of a song/file wotever that you dont own, so ergo copyright theft, there is no denying it and that is fact, we on this board all do it.
hence you are breaking the one copy rule!
money: if u dl a song from a band, you might only like that one song, so some argue wots the point of buying the whole ablum for one song. i like the offspring and i brought one of their albums for one song and ended up liking the whole lot. so those who dl the whole album are potentially taking the money from the artist that they would be getting for the said ablum u would have brought.
in excess this origenally was about the interpritation of the US constitution in how its worded to allow corporate companys to charge rediculouse fees to maintain the artists songs/ideas
take the case of courtny love and nirvanas songs, she owns the copyright on countless un released nirvana songs that the band wrote, not just kurt, so they are not allowed to release these songs because she is freezing the copyright and prohibiting the songs release
Xanex
For clarification. This is not the case in the UK, though many people think it is.Quote:
Originally posted by Xanex@22 April 2003 - 18:15
You are allowed believe it or not to make a working back up copy of anything like tape/vhs/dvd/mp3 etc etc as long as 1) you own the origenal and 2) if the origenal is lost/stolen/sold/broken?? (not sure since that was the point in some cases of making th bakup so the origenal was safe) and if it is then you are to destroy the back up copy forthwit.
You are only alowed to make 1 working back up copy, count it one!
JmiF, your new makeover and ubercalm demeanor are vaguely unsettling.
You haven't been channeling Charles Whitman lately, have you?
Are you suggesting that in the dim and distant past I sniped at people.Quote:
Originally posted by clocker@22 April 2003 - 21:19
JmiF, your new makeover and ubercalm demeanor are vaguely unsettling.
You haven't been channeling Charles Whitman lately, have you?
Fraid not mate. Just a serious warning from a mod about some of the posts. Didn't want a ban so basically have to temper the behaviour.