More Powerful Than The Government?

[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
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!!

[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's no proof/guarentee that a large corporation lost a sale just because you downloaded a file.

You may buy the item it's derrived from (or already own it) or you may have no intention to buy that irregardless. That's like saying that listening to a song on the radio means you won't buy the CD... then again, considering what I've heard on the radio lately that migth be true...

If the 'piracy losses' 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 $'s worth of piracy is going on but tell stockholders and government that they don't have those losses in their tax reports and company monthly reports says they're either lying to 1 group... or lying to us all!

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...

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.

[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.