Well that was against the law too. All the justification I’m reading on this topic are from downloaders who don’t want to admit that what they are doing is wrong. [/quote]
Umm, we don’t know if everyone here is a downloader? That’s generalizing. I think that the question is legit and should be pondered.
Yeah, but that would be stupid.
if you friend rented a Max Hardcore flic and you went to his house and watched it when he wasn’t home, or took it home to watch it as it was intended to be watched…alone…would THAT too be stealin?
You are correct that it’s obviously illegal but “wrong” is a different matter. Intellectual property is a strange thing. With other things, there is an actual loss of peoperty that comes with the theft. With IP, it’s just a failure to gain additional money.
The problem with your analogy is that if you steal a CD off the shelf at Best Buy, Best Buy actually loses money because they paid the distributor for that CD. Best Buy faces a negative cash flow as a result of stocking that item.
The other problem with IP is that it’s hard to return for a refund if you don’t like it because piracy is so rampant that it’s assumed that you did copy it. I once bought a CD at a local store, took it to my car, put it in the CD player, found out it was the “In Concert” version, and took it right back in the store. The store refused to accept the return and only accepted it after 15 minutes of my persistance that it was impossible for me to copy it in the 3 minutes I had it in my car. I’m not sure about other countries but most stores in America will only accept software of music returns if you’re exchanging it for the same item.
With that in mind, I don’t believe that the “try before you buy” concept is wrong. Preferrably you’re going to try a friend’s CD or try the software on a friend’s computer but in absense of your ability to do that, nobody is losing anything because you’re either going to buy it or quit using it.
Is it wrong to use software or music that you did not buy or obtain legally? Absolutely! Are the movie, record, and software companies losing money to every person that pirates their product? Absolutely Not! Most of them would never have purchased it in the first place. They are only losing money to the people who would buy it if they had no way to copy it.
Yeah, but that would be stupid.
if you friend rented a Max Hardcore flic and you went to his house and watched it when he wasn’t home, or took it home to watch it as it was intended to be watched…alone…would THAT too be stealin?[/quote]
Naw, that’s just bad taste in porn. I guess if you don’t count tresspassing, that’s not wring. Assuming you have his permission to enter his property of course that isn’t wrong, just like it wouldn’t be wrong for me to borrow my neighbor’s lawnmower twice a week to mow my lawn. The problem comes when you “borrow” something without the intent to return it (or in downloading’s case, delete it after you listen to it), we call that stealing. Intellectual property is still property under the law. I can no more use an artists music without permission than I can market my own Windows JB operating system.
Yeah, but that would be stupid.
if you friend rented a Max Hardcore flic and you went to his house and watched it when he wasn’t home, or took it home to watch it as it was intended to be watched…alone…would THAT too be stealin?[/quote]
Naw, that’s just bad taste in porn. I guess if you don’t count tresspassing, that’s not wring. Assuming you have his permission to enter his property of course that isn’t wrong, just like it wouldn’t be wrong for me to borrow my neighbor’s lawnmower twice a week to mow my lawn. The problem comes when you “borrow” something without the intent to return it (or in downloading’s case, delete it after you listen to it), we call that stealing. Intellectual property is still property under the law. I can no more use an artists music without permission than I can market my own Windows JB operating system.[/quote]
So your idea is that you can A) download and watch it, but B) you must delete it once you’ve seen it and C) you can’t copy it?
I wonder how Hollywood feels about that? 
Man, I’m just abiding by the current law. The law says you can sample, which is why you can listen to songs online and watch parts of movies too. The crime comes when you copy something that you don’t own with the intenet to keep it. If you buy the movie or song, the law says you can make one copy for yourself. For what? I guess for anything except selling it or giving it to a friend.
It happened to me several times already, that I bought CDs with copy protection, which couldn’t be played at all CD players. Wtf, you buy a CD and can’t play it in your car?!
If I download the same music from the Web to be able to burn me a CD which is playable in my CD player, is that stealing?
[quote=“Shiner”]It happened to me several times already, that I bought CDs with copy protection, which couldn’t be played at all CD players. Wtf, you buy a CD and can’t play it in your car?!
If I download the same music from the Web to be able to burn me a CD which is playable in my CD player, is that stealing?[/quote]
If I downloaded it and it didn’t work, well, TFS, but if I BUY a copy and it doesn’t work…that blows.
I also happen to think the whole “region” thing sucks major wang. What’s the fargin point in that?
Regarding applications, I reckon some companies actually benefit from people downloading software that they would not normally buy.
e.g. Photoshop and Autocad are industry standards, but cost thousands for the full version.
Home use is by people who largely do not make any money from using the software, but by doing so expand the popularity of the application which helps make it the industry standard. Meaning businesses who are making money, tend to buy the industry standard that everyone is familiar with.
Not sure if I communicated that very well, but in Software development applications, it is common now to provide full versions to developers/programmers for free, it’s the enterprise levels to deploy the product and licenses that generate the cash. All generated from lower level users on a free application.
Where is Tigerman when you need him… :help:
…to agree with you.
I think he’s burning Dead shows.
An interesting discussion. I’m surprised that noone has mentioned the concept of ‘fair use’ yet though.
I don’t think the law is anywhere near so black & white as you suggest. The principle of fair use is very (deliberately?) vague as to what is and isn’t legal. There are some famous cases which give you a guideline - e.g. when VCRs were invented Sony won a court case which guarantees that recording of the TV for personal later use is fair, but I’m not sure whether it covers lending the tape to a friend. (Inviting him round to watch the show as it’s broadcast is OK, so why not?)
Mapping this back to P2P song sharing - is it legal for me to download songs which I’ve already bought the CD for? In particular, I’ve bought several CDs that I have never listened to: Because the CDs were copy protected and I mostly listen to MP3s nowadays, I had to download the music over the internet to get it in a format I could sensibly listen to. I’m not even sure that I’ve taken the plastic wrapping off the CD cases! Legally, it’s probably a bit of a grey area - but morally I don’t have any problem doing this.
The thing I find most annoying about all this is that there are many cases where I would happily part with money to watch stuff that’s available over P2P, but there’s no way to do it. I’m sure many people on this forum would pay to watch TV shows from their home country - although you can now illegally download them over P2P, there’s no way to watch them legally. If the broadcasters spent more time working out how to make money from P2P and less time worrying about potential lost revenue, I think everyone would be happier.
…to agree with you.
I think he’s burning Dead shows.[/quote]
Hahah The only group out there that doesn’t give a rat’s ass about illegal downloading. Oh the irony in that… 
:bravo: The best comment I’ve heard. The BBC have been experimenting with some BBC3 shows for download, but you can only view them on your PC. What’s the point of that? I want to be able to sit down and watch them on the TV - I would have thought this was obvious. A new mind-set is required within the large media organisations else they will lose the fight against P2P eventually - if they haven’t already - fair use is a very important concept and the more you “restrict” what users can do with content they have purchased the more ways they will find around it, whether it is “illegal” or not.
P2P is NOT illegal. Sharing material for which you do not own the copyright, within certain jurisdictions, IS illegal.
In the UK there is, of course, a larger ethical question. Why should a UK resident have to pay to own BBC TV programmes, by buying them on DVD for example? They have already been paid for by the licence fee (a tax) and therefore they are being paid for twice. All BBC programmes should be available for download in the UK free. Selling them overseas is fair game.
Commercial broadcasters face a much larger problem. Advertising pays for programme making. If nobody is watching the advertising, because they use TIVO, DVD recorders, etc. to skip this content (which is already happening), or they are downloading the content (less adverts) via P2P, then they require a whole new business model. The fight against P2P and the reliance on “restriction” software is a knee-jerk reaction to this problem. The problem will not just go away. Unless the media reinvent themselves, reinvent their business model and revenue streams, then they will go the way of the dinosaurs (which is no bad thing in many ways).
Music is an even more complicated problem, but it has always been there. Music is now available to record and keep via the internet. The music industry spend millions chasing down pirates. Hasn’t this same music always been available to record and keep via the radio? When I was young people used to record from the radio and I don’t remember the BPI coming and knocking on their door. Another knee-jerk reaction that requires a change of thinking. Radio pay a performance fee to the copyright holder for using their music and a similar fee needs to be applied to the internet so that money is channeled back to the artist. But then, who needs a record company anymore? That is the big issue - what value does a record company actually add anymore? Another bunch of dinosaurs desperately trying to stop their own inevitable extinction by chasing around the internet with a bunch of lawyers in tow, wishing they could go back to the “good old days”.
Goodbye EMI, Warner Bros, et all - and good riddance I say! :raspberry:
imho:
music downloads- it’s not a bad thing to have a vibrant scene. if having music available for free is going to expose bands to a larger audience then i don’t see the problem. they should get more people out to their shows where the band actually makes money. the people who do enjoy their music will find a way to support what they like. the record label execs will lose out but that doesn’t bother me a bit. for years they’ve been charging 15+ for a .50 disc. how much of that actually made it to the artist?
tv shows and movies- been a dirty business from the beginning. can’t feel sorry for the mafia. i don’t go to the movies so they’re not losing money off of me downloading the odd indi film. wouldn’t care if they did.
software- i couldn’t afford it for the most part so guess they aren’t losing any money. i suppose having the free downloads gives me a chance to try their wares without any risk of getting something i find out i have no need for. maybe someday if i win the lottery i’d buy a copy so it’s a potential customer for them by having me use a pirate copy. a pretty weak defence so yes, i am a bad person. whatever.
ag
I don’t think it was against the law.
Why do you think blank tapes were manufactured?
I don’t think it was against the law.
Why do you think blank tapes were manufactured?[/quote]
Sorry, but that’s a classic post. :bravo: :roflmao:
But its true.
Look, Sony owns the rights to a large catalogue of music… and Sony produces and sells blank tapes… and other recordable media.
See this:
[quote]Home taping and the law, pre-1992
The legislative history of the Sound Recording Amendment of 1971, which made sound recordings a class of copyrightable works, indicated that home taping was considered a permitted use. The House Report noted:
Specifically, it is not the intention of the Committee to restrain the home recording, from broadcasts or from tapes, or records, of recorded performances, where the home recording is for private use and with no purpose of reproducing or otherwise capitalizing commercially on it. This practice is common and unrestrained today, and the record producers and performers would be in no different position from that of the owners of copyright in recorded musical compositions over the past 20 years.[/quote]