Jump to content

The ethics of file sharing


CSMatt
 Share

51 posts in this topic

Recommended Posts

I think the word is illegality or unlawful act. Why won't the owners mind? They get a royalty check everytime the show is run or released on DVD. Anything illegally downloaded is a one less payment they will get.

The company wouldn't get royalties regardless, simply because they aren't selling copies or airing reruns.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

See this article: Piracy is the new business model for Wal-Mart & Hollywood. ie cheaper & cheaper DVD's

 

http://www.slate.com/id/2137955/

 

I think ive said enough. And have explained how this world REALLY works. And how the delusion of copyright blinds those who believe it.

 

Back to getting VESA 3 working on my x600Pro so I can post the results. :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As for your rethoric mark about freedom of speech, as far as im concerned, if you hate it. GO LIVE IN CHINA. Their government will love you over there. :D

Ive been there, twice, its not a free country. You would love it.

 

Actually i have been to china too - i would quite like to live there i think, there are plenty of expats there. But that's beside the point. I didn't say i hated free speech - i just don't understand what the right to free speech has to do with intellectual property rights.

 

Sorry, but Ill damn well post, and print what I want. And not APPLE, or the BSA, or some stupid ass other organization will tell me what I can and cannot talk about. And if someone tries to sue me over it. GOOD.

 

I personally think the DMCA is over the top, however, and correct me if i'm wrong, from what you've said in previous posts, your attitude seems to be that you can just take whatever "intellectual creation" you want without the authors permission. Like you have some constitutional right to it? I don't understand where that attitude comes from.

 

Don't we all have a right to protect what is ours, either property or intellect. Why should you be permitted to just take it from someone else? I'm curious where you draw the line, do you consider it acceptable to sneak into a cinema without a ticket, or steal a video game for a shop (perhaps dispositing a few cents in place of the packaging to cover publishing costs?) Can't you see the economic damage this would do to society if intellectual property ceased to exist. What would be the point in a company investing time and money in developing a software application or game, or in a film studio creating a multi million dollar movie if they have to give it away for free. It just not feasable within our society's economic model. Sure in an ideal society where the accumulation of wealth was not the driving force, but i don't think anyone can see that happening within our lifetime.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sorry mate, but society is B******T and totally F****D. The sooner this current state of affairs collapses, the better. Where is Che when you need him?

 

If I create something and sell it, how can I justify selling it again to somebody else, and on and on and on? Is that not just printing money?

 

Well this is where I step in, pirate it and then actively distribute it. I have a copy of a Che Guevara documentary that I illegally downloaded and will FTP it to you if you want. Don't pay me, just burn some money instead. Open source is the way forward. When people create, it should be for the human race, the planet and nature. The reward should be in the good feeling this generates, not in cash and ownership. They are copyrighting genes now. I studied genetics and molecular biology at university but realised that sector is pure exploitation and capitalism. I had already intended to use that knowledge against those fools, to be outspoken in the public eye, but I have realised that being around that field just makes me ill in the head, and yes I am very good at it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please, che guevara was an egotistical child murderer, hardly a role model for the idealistic society you seek.

 

Although you make a good point about the copyright of genes - which i think is just stupid, the pharmaceutical co's didn't invent the genes, they just discovered them. Imagine if newton copyrighted gravity!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree about Che. But I use his name to represent a different set of ideas to those hammered into us in the west, from society and school about capitalism, democracy and freedom. How can democracy and freedom exist when capitlaism reigns?

 

I can't help but boil an issue such as copyright infringement down to the current political climate. My ideal is to live in a world where there is not a multitude choice of washing powder, computers and cars, because I feel this detracts from our humanity. Products seem to pollute our minds by creating desire for things that won't make us happier. But I would still love a FZS 1000 motorcycle even though the FZS 600 left me in hospital. I wish I could help that kind of desire. There is a squat in North Barcelona called Can Masdeu. They have the best structured example of communal living I have ever seen. Also from Barcelona, there is an artsists group called Yomango who make performances out of theft from high street shops. I am not very good at expressing what is in my mind unless it is scientific. Can Masdeu and Yomango promote ideas that I feel an affinity to.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Actually i have been to china too - i would quite like to live there i think, there are plenty of expats there. But that's beside the point. I didn't say i hated free speech - i just don't understand what the right to free speech has to do with intellectual property rights.

I personally think the DMCA is over the top, however, and correct me if i'm wrong, from what you've said in previous posts, your attitude seems to be that you can just take whatever "intellectual creation" you want without the authors permission. Like you have some constitutional right to it? I don't understand where that attitude comes from.

 

Don't we all have a right to protect what is ours, either property or intellect. Why should you be permitted to just take it from someone else? I'm curious where you draw the line, do you consider it acceptable to sneak into a cinema without a ticket, or steal a video game for a shop (perhaps dispositing a few cents in place of the packaging to cover publishing costs?) Can't you see the economic damage this would do to society if intellectual property ceased to exist. What would be the point in a company investing time and money in developing a software application or game, or in a film studio creating a multi million dollar movie if they have to give it away for free. It just not feasable within our society's economic model. Sure in an ideal society where the accumulation of wealth was not the driving force, but i don't think anyone can see that happening within our lifetime.

 

I just don't think you get what Im saying abou the DMCA. The DMCA states that you cannot LINK to anything pirated right? THAT is what I am talking about. NOBODY will tell me what I can't and cannot WRITE, or TALK ABOUT. Its just like the Jon Johensen case. DeCSS. People had the code printed on their T-Shirts for crying out loud. I have one in my office on my wall. You can't go and tell me that I can't print code on my T-Shirt, no way. Hell no. If I want to print the windows source code all over my wall, website, and my toothbrush, I will.

 

And again, I find myself repeating this too much. How can you take software from someone? They still have the software. So they are not at a loss. I havn't taken away their ability to SELL software. I havn't harmed them in ANY way. There has been NO DAMAGE DONE. They are still f***ing rich beyond their wildest dreams. If i can't pirate it, im NOT going to buy it. I just won't use it. Ill find an open source solution that is better than theirs. Intellectual Property is YOUR idea. Not mine. Its YOUR religion. Not mine.

 

Ive given code to Linux projects, created a dockapp for windowmaker, created a Theme that was in an official Mandrake release, and have a garageband created version of amazing grace (Electric) up for download. Do you know who all this belongs to? YOU. EVERYONE. Not me. YOU. Go grab a copy.

 

http://www.linuxgod.net/

http://www.linuxgod.net/~jd/

 

In order to truely be free, you must be of free mind.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I get your point about the DMCA and agree that the rules on linking are excessive - your example about printing the source code on a t-shirt is a bit of a one off, and i'm sure microsoft couldn't give a wetslap if you printed their source on your t-shirt.

 

I don't think your legitimisation of your actions stands up though - sure your own individual actions will not have any effect on the developer but you can't use that as a basis on which to determine whether your actions are acceptable. You have to consider the effect if EVERYONE did what you are doing. Then the developer would not make money. Nobody could profit from any creative act, pharmaceutical companies would not spend millions on drug development, fiilm studios wouldn't make movies, etc, etc, and the entire economy would collapse overnight - that's not an exageration.

 

The contribution to the linux projects you mentioned is admirable and open source projects have their place but you are not dependent on those projects as your source of income and as the creator you have freely chosen to give them away so it's not the same thing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I get your point about the DMCA and agree that the rules on linking are excessive - your example about printing the source code on a t-shirt is a bit of a one off, and i'm sure microsoft couldn't give a wetslap if you printed their source on your t-shirt.

 

Maybe I should have MSN raided for archiving my site without my permission. :)

 

I don't think your legitimisation of your actions stands up though - sure your own individual actions will not have any effect on the developer but you can't use that as a basis on which to determine whether your actions are acceptable. You have to consider the effect if EVERYONE did what you are doing. Then the developer would not make money. Nobody could profit from any creative act, pharmaceutical companies would not spend millions on drug development, fiilm studios wouldn't make movies, etc, etc, and the entire economy would collapse overnight - that's not an exageration.

 

But not everyone does. And bill gates still flies around in a chopper. Like I said though. The law should not enforce his (developer)'s believe in copyright anymore than it should enforce my belief in copyleft.

 

Not exactly. Ive posted this on another topic. Please read.

http://www.marshallbrain.com/manna1.htm

Its a good 7 chapter read.

 

The contribution to the linux projects you mentioned is admirable and open source projects have their place but you are not dependent on those projects as your source of income and as the creator you have freely chosen to give them away so it's not the same thing.

 

Then maybe the law SHOULD enforce the GPL, CopyLeft, and GNU, the same as it does copyright.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

sure your own individual actions will not have any effect on the developer but you can't use that as a basis on which to determine whether your actions are acceptable. You have to consider the effect if EVERYONE did what you are doing. Then the developer would not make money.

 

This is true, but you can't base your own actions upon that...laws are generalizations for large sums. I'm not saying that some people should be 'above the law', but that dosn't mean the law is correct or right. It would be like suggesting that EVERYONE should eat more peas because they benefit one persons anatomy particularly well...or everyone should drink alcohol daily...it just dosn't work for everyone. Our laws (at least in America) are always based off of the lowest common denominator...ie, 5% of people who eat LSD may go crazy and kill someone- therefore, NO ONE should, and its totally illegal...even though 25% of people who eat it may have epiphanies and become far better people for doing it.

 

Anyways, I'm not trying to argue or flame anyone or anything, mostly I just think its ridiculous how people are eating up these totally absurd numbers of 'claimed' financial loss by corporate america. Studies done by companies and organizations that aren't directly tied with the music industry for instance, have shown that the record companies are actually making MORE money and sales since the entire P2P thing blew up....the total opposite of what a company like Sony would happen to 'find' in their own investigations.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Anyways, I'm not trying to argue or flame anyone or anything, mostly I just think its ridiculous how people are eating up these totally absurd numbers of 'claimed' financial loss by corporate america. Studies done by companies and organizations that aren't directly tied with the music industry for instance, have shown that the record companies are actually making MORE money and sales since the entire P2P thing blew up....the total opposite of what a company like Sony would happen to 'find' in their own investigations.

 

You just gave me a GREAT idea. I think im going to do a profit loss study on the computer service sector because of DRM/TPM, and then bring them before a local democrat senator I go to church with, and see if he can go from there. I'll also do one on the profit gain of the RIAA/MPAA/BSA as a rsult of P2P as well.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Honestly,

 

As I was reading this whole post I was thinking that OryHara was just a ignorant kid, that was quick at the mouth, but by the time I got to the end of the post I can see that is not the case at all, as he can ACTUALLY explain his reasonings unlike most people who try to put up sometype of argument, I agree with him, as I to also pirate stuff, If I didn't I would have a computer, with nothing on it ;) And quite personally I wouldn't have it any other way, why should i spend $200+ on windows when it's what like 6 years old? Is there not depriciation here? I would buy some of these programs, if they actually priced them closer to what they are worth, I mean I have no problem with buying OS X, and patching it myself, thats not a problem at all, OS X is actually at an affordable price, but I refuse to pay these outrageous prices for software, I mean come on now, if you want to sell this stuff, make it affordable for people of all classes/occupations etc. I mean I know many of my friends who originally downloaded photoshop and got really good at it, and then turned around and bought it, but how is one supposed to get good at a program when most "shareware" either ceases to function or is limited in features, i will never stop pirating stuff, If I like it, I may buy it, it really depends on whether or not the price they are asking for it is, really worth that amount to me.

 

just my 2 cents

 

andrew

 

ps: good job OryHara, i understand your points completely, and can't really argue with them :) Thanks for explaining what i don't really have the time to do :P

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just because something is overpriced is no excuse to just take it. If you wanted that shiny new PS3 in the window at your local GameStop but weren't willing to pay for its outrageous price, that doesn't mean you have the right to just snatch it off the shelf without paying.

 

If something is really too expensive, either the price will go down, the product will fail, or the product will attract a "niche" market of rich people. For example, Adobe how sells a stripped-down version of Photoshop for $100 because they realized that demand for the $800 Photoshop was high but potential customers either weren't willing or weren't able to purchase it. Microsoft did this too for Windows XP and will do so to an even greater extent with Vista.

 

Piracy is not the answer; showing the owner that a substantial income can be made on a product if a few marketing adjustments are made is.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As far as i can tell there are three main arguments that people use when trying to legitimise piracy and their all a load of {censored}:

 

1) It costs too much/isn't worth it in my opinion so I can just take it.

Well debunked by CSMatt in the previous post.

 

2) It doesn't matter if I take it because i wouldn't buy it even if i had to, so my actions have not effect on the copyright owner.

Just because what your doing doesn't impact on anyone else directly it doesn' make it right. The copyright owner expended time creating his property - and you've taken it without his permission to use as you see fit. It's really only different from stealing on a technicality.

 

3) Laws don't apply to me if i don't believe they are fair.

This is the view that i find most annoying/irrational/ignorant. Whether or not you agree with copyright law, if you live in a society where the majority have decided that it is a fair law then you are bound to adhere to it. This argument is completely stupid - it contradicts the whole idea of law for people to choose which ones apply to them!

 

If anyone has posted an argument that differs from any of the three above then i've missed it an i apologise but i don't think anyone has.

 

 

 

@OryHara - Interesting comment about the church too, given your open breach of copyright law you may be interested to note that the bible has a tough stance on obeying civil law as defined by a God ordained government. Even if you disagree with the law you are required by God to obey unless it conflicts with divine law (which i pretty sure copyright doesn't). To disobey a government ordained by God is to disobey God himself. Romans 13:1-5, 1 Peter 2:13-14, Acts 5:29

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3) Laws don't apply to me if i don't believe they are fair.

This is the view that i find most annoying/irrational/ignorant. Whether or not you agree with copyright law, if you live in a society where the majority have decided that it is a fair law then you are bound to adhere to it. This argument is completely stupid - it contradicts the whole idea of law for people to choose which ones apply to them!

 

Laws don't apply to me because I'm an anarchist. Yes, I'm irrational ignorant and antisocial but I like it ;)

 

[GER] Legal, illegal, scheissegal

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As far as i can tell there are three main arguments that people use when trying to legitimise piracy and their all a load of {censored}:

 

1) It costs too much/isn't worth it in my opinion so I can just take it.

Well debunked by CSMatt in the previous post.

 

2) It doesn't matter if I take it because i wouldn't buy it even if i had to, so my actions have not effect on the copyright owner.

Just because what your doing doesn't impact on anyone else directly it doesn' make it right. The copyright owner expended time creating his property - and you've taken it without his permission to use as you see fit. It's really only different from stealing on a technicality.

 

3) Laws don't apply to me if i don't believe they are fair.

This is the view that i find most annoying/irrational/ignorant. Whether or not you agree with copyright law, if you live in a society where the majority have decided that it is a fair law then you are bound to adhere to it. This argument is completely stupid - it contradicts the whole idea of law for people to choose which ones apply to them!

 

If anyone has posted an argument that differs from any of the three above then i've missed it an i apologise but i don't think anyone has.

@OryHara - Interesting comment about the church too, given your open breach of copyright law you may be interested to note that the bible has a tough stance on obeying civil law as defined by a God ordained government. Even if you disagree with the law you are required by God to obey unless it conflicts with divine law (which i pretty sure copyright doesn't). To disobey a government ordained by God is to disobey God himself. Romans 13:1-5, 1 Peter 2:13-14, Acts 5:29

 

Copyright was never mentioned in the bible. Copyright is man-made and has nothing to do with theft. Pirating is not theft. You just think it is because thats what the Corp 500 have brainwashed you into beLIEving.

 

As far as YOUR laws, passed by people that beLIEve like you: that is unless the JUSTICE system has been bought by people like you, I would love to challenge your paid-for-law in court.

 

If you want to get technical. You believe copyright infrengement is theft right? Did not Jesus say that if a man takes your shoes, give him your coat as well? If the law in China said worship Buddah would you whorship the green guy too? And who said the U.S government was 'ordained' by god? I doubt god likes the majority of what the U.S. is doing now. Thus 911, Hurricane Katrina, etc... But thats another topic. See the Bush topic. Which I also left because some were again resulting to personal attacks.

 

As far as the above post about the Playstation or whatever, ebay is my first place to look for a good cheap $40 system that needs nothing more than some Ram Cleaner, Windex, and a cotten swauve. I don't play console games. They just don't have the power to push the high-end stuff. I like to run games at 1024x768 or above. My '36 Tube TV won't push those resolutions. And NO, I don't want an HDTV. I don't want DRM anywhere NEAR my home.

 

AGAIN, AGAIN, AGAIN, How many times must I say it. The copyright owner has lost NOTHING. Stealing is taking from someone at YOUR GAIN, and THEIR LOSS. Copyright advocates LOOSE NOTHING. They are STILL RICH BEYOND THEIR WILDEST DREAMS. In order to steal, you must take something from them at their expense. Example: Bill Gates can't sell Windows anymore because he doesn't have it, because you broke into his office and stole all of his CDs and source code. Leaving him with nothing to sell. THAT would be theft.

 

You copyright advocates speak of copyright holders protecting their so called property. What are they trying to protect it from? An open market? Competition? I always thought competition drives innovation? So copyright, and patent advocates are against innovation, competition, and an open market? Or maybe copyright advocates are against the existance of no market, in which software is free, downloadable, and open source?

 

NONE of you have answered that yet. Much less have even taken a wack at it. But I think 1/2 of you understand it, and actually agree once you understand the logic behind it.

 

If you want to turn this into a personal battle which many of you have felt that you must resort to. I challenge you to this personal question.

 

You sit here and talk about how much YOU JUST LOVE COPYRIGHT. But yet you DOWNLOAD OS X. WITHOUT PAYING FOR IT. Installing it on UNAPPROVED hardware, thus violating Apples EULAs which you seem to love so much. I have no problem with this. But you do, and yet you resort to hipocracy. Just come out and say it. But lets say it all together now, out loud. I AM A SOFTWARE PIRATE.

 

I would like to make it clear that I have in no way personally attacked anyone on this board up untill now with the above, and below statements. And have tried my damnest to keep this a friendly debate. However. There are those of you who want to resort to personal attacks. when they know absolutely nothing about the person who they are attacking, thus shooting in the dark at shadows.

 

I am going to leave this debate now since some of you need to grow up. If you can't figure out what to say then don't say it at all. But don't be a total f***tard and result to personal attacks because you can't think of what to say next. Im not actually referring to the above post, but some of the posts in general. I know for a FACT that you all are smarter than that. If you are posting anywhere on this site, you must have at least some sense of technical ability.

 

That is why I am ending my posts in this thread. I din't come here to make enemies. I came here to share my knowledge and ideas in hopes they could be useful in your development, knowledge, projects, or even daily life.

 

Thank you, and it was a pleasure talking to you all.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Copyright was never mentioned in the bible. Copyright is man-made and has nothing to do with theft. Pirating is not theft. You just think it is because thats what the Corp 500 have brainwashed you into beLIEving.

 

As far as YOUR laws, passed by people that beLIEve like you: that is unless the JUSTICE system has been bought by people like you, I would love to challenge your paid-for-law in court.

 

If you want to get technical. You believe copyright infrengement is theft right? Did not Jesus say that if a man takes your shoes, give him your coat as well? If the law in China said worship Buddah would you whorship the green guy too? And who said the U.S government was 'ordained' by god? I doubt god likes the majority of what the U.S. is doing now. Thus 911, Hurricane Katrina, etc... But thats another topic. See the Bush topic. Which I also left because some were again resulting to personal attacks.

 

OK this is a bit off topic but it's worth mentioning the moral aspect and i feel i should correct this before letting it go. First off copyright law is not mentioned in the bible true, but we have plenty of laws that are not specifically mentioned in the bible so i don't think that invalidates it. If the law in china said worship buddah i would not becuase that would be a violation of devine law which is the ONLY time Christians are permitted to violate civil law. The US government is God ordained by it's very existance, if God did not wish the current government to be in power they would not be - is it not within God's power to appoint whoever he wishes to govern. Therefore by the very fact that the US Government is in power and that the US Government has recorgnised copyright law, the bible REQUIRES you to submit to it. Wether you like it or not. That is the only stance i can take as a Christian. I may not like copyright law anymore than you but it's the law and i am required to follow it.

 

(Finally I do not believe 911 or Katrina etc can be used as evidence for God's displeasure with the US government.)

 

AGAIN, AGAIN, AGAIN, How many times must I say it. The copyright owner has lost NOTHING. Stealing is taking from someone at YOUR GAIN, and THEIR LOSS. Copyright advocates LOOSE NOTHING. They are STILL RICH BEYOND THEIR WILDEST DREAMS. In order to steal, you must take something from them at their expense. Example: Bill Gates can't sell Windows anymore because he doesn't have it, because you broke into his office and stole all of his CDs and source code. Leaving him with nothing to sell. THAT would be theft.

 

But the point is if nobody was required to pay for license to use the software, i.e. if there was no copyright law, then they wouldn't be "rich beyond their wildest dreams" would they. There would be no money to be made from a creative act, and then where would all that innovation go? People innovate to make profit - no profit = little innovation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I apologize if me bringing up religious beliefs came as a personal attack.

 

Yes, I am a hypocrite. I haven't installed Mac OS X on my PC, but I do have paused OSx86 torrent downloads still in queue because I haven't obtained the will to delete them yet. I have also pirated various otherwise-unavailable TV shows, "tested" some proprietary software that I was skeptical about or that was so old I assumed that the copyright holder didn't care about it anymore, and “sampled” a few MP3s and DVDs without explicit permission. However, I still have no right to violate copyright laws by doing so.

 

Just because I'm arguing on the side of the law does not mean that I agree with it. I too think that intellectual property law is being abused to an extent by software and entertainment giants to persecute individuals and restrict fair use rights. An example of my distaste for it would be in my earlier posts about TV rips. But as an American citizen, I am obligated to obey all national, state, and local laws. The only thing of significance is that I have the right to elect representatives who can change the law on my behalf.

 

Unfortunately, legalizing TV rips isn't exactly on the minds of most of the politicians running for Congress.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The ideas of society, law and order, the nuclear family, monogamy, tax, church, *endless list* only serve the select few people with lots of money or status. I would rather die than live as a slave to the system. There is nothing wrong with stealing from corporations/chain stores. If they go out of business, or the manufacturer goes out of business, then good. Using the PS3 as an example, If it didn't exist, then there would be far less brainwashed peeps out there, obsessed with a product designed to extract money from the owner. Maybe people would then have to find another form of pasttime, hopefully not as dumb. I view the commercial world in a matrix kind of way. There will always be people that are totally comfortable with being exploited as long as they are thrown peanuts every now and then. The dairy industry and cows could be another model. The cow is given food, but it is being exploited with the balance in the favour of the farmer. I would rather be extinct than to exist to serve. I would rather be poor than rich off other peoples work. Managers should be paid less because they do not do the real work. The whole idea of employee/employer is a financial distinction.

 

This is my view on what is going on today, and I think this qualifies my opinion that file sharing (read active piracy) is a good thing, and stealing from the rich is even better. Bank robbers are painted as a bad thing, for the only reason that they threaten the system which serves the rich.

 

Slavery used to be legal, what does that say about the legal system? Don't respect laws which you don't agree with. We can police ourselves given the psychological empowerment. People tend to give their rights away to a uniformed official. Well the fact that they have a uniform does not qualify them to tell me what to do.

 

Anarchy is a most misunderstood concept by people that are such suckers, that they actually argue for the system which represses them. A library is a very good anarchistic model. Another one is the way that people will self organize a queue at a bus stop. Anarchy IS NOT beating people up, smashing windows and stealing. Do some reading and educate yourself if you don't know what i am talking about

 

The real suckers are the people that believe they are powerful or rich, they are more trapped than most.

 

 

"But as an American citizen, I am obligated to obey all national, state, and local laws. The only thing of significance is that I have the right to elect representatives who can change the law on my behalf."

 

Please don't believe this, because they surely have got you if you do! Electing somebody doesn't gain you representation. The only time politicains pretend to care is when campaigning. the rest of the time they don't even pretend. The only way you can try to make a change is through huge amounts of effort and manpower, lobbying and using the media as a tool. Only then are you a real danger to a politicians public image that you may affect their career. They will reluctantly listen then, sometimes.

 

Before the recent war on Iraq, there were huge demonstrations in th Uk with millions of ordinary citizens marching on London. If millions of people march in London who all disagree with the war, then surely there are far more who disagree but were less motivated. Nothing could have been clearer about Uk public opinion, still Tony Blair said he knew better and off to war he went. That is a perfect example of how true democracy does not exist and also how governments like the UK (and the US) are actually elected dictatorships.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not sure about the cow example..i think i lost you there!? Surely you can't really think that society would be better off if people just stole stuff from chain stores? What makes a chain store different from an independent store by the way? What if someone owns a few stores - is it ok to steal from them, i'm interested to know where the line is?

 

If we did live in an anarchist society without rule of law what's to stop all those people who enjoy beating people up or smashing stuff from getting away with it. No society can function without rules and people elected to enforce them. Sure the system isn't perfect, and often means that the greedy corporations come out on top but how can that be avoided, it's human nature to be greedy and selfish and a whole lot of other horrible things. Thats why we have laws, so that the consequences cause us to keep our actions in check.

 

The whole war in iraq is another issue for another thread (i'm sure there is one) but I think being a politician is a thankless task and there are a few out there who do act with the best of intentions - they may not always get it right but isn't that basically human too. I don't think many people are in a position to judge the motives of people such as tony blair or george bush given our only view of them is as they are protrayed through the media - and the media frequently have their own motives.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

I was looking over Rhapsody's TOS, and came across this:

6. INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY RIGHTS

 

Only you may access the Services using your user name and password. The Services available through the Application, and the Application itself, are the property of RN-DMC or its licensors and are protected by copyright and other intellectual property laws. The Services provided through the Application may be used for your personal, non-commercial use only. You agree not to (i) reproduce, record, retransmit, distribute, disseminate, sell, rent, broadcast or circulate the Application or any content received through the Application or any Service (including music content) to any third party, (ii) exploit any such content or the Application for commercial purposes without the express prior written consent of RN-DMC, or (iii) to share your password with any third party. You may not make any unauthorized copies of the Application or any content obtained through the Services. Because the Services are designed for personal use, you are not allowed to use any automated system for the selection or streaming of files. You further agree to indemnify and hold harmless RN-DMC for your failure to comply with this section.

Does this mean that it is illegal to record the streams coming from Rhapsody 25 using a digital recorder such as Nero Wave Editor, even if they are for personal use only?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I was looking over Rhapsody's TOS, and came across this:

 

Does this mean that it is illegal to record the streams coming from Rhapsody 25 using a digital recorder such as Nero Wave Editor, even if they are for personal use only?

 

 

Yes, and because of the DMCA, this _is_ enforceable in the US. It is illegal to break the encryption, or otherwise circumvent any digitally protected content, even for uses that would have previously fell under "fair use". It is the same reason it's illegal to make back-ups of your DVD's.

 

Piracy was _not_ the reason for the DMCA. "Piracy" was illegal before the DMCA, and continues to be so today. Piracy it still quite prevalent today. The ONLY purpose the DMCA serves is to impede "fair use" of digital content, in an effort to sell more licenses for that content. If you buy a DVD, but want to convert it to play on your <insert portable device here>, it's illegal. You need to purchase another license specifically for that portable device.

 

This also brings up a possible ethical use for file sharing:

 

I own <insert name of DVD title that my child will eat and destroy>. I would like to make a backup of this DVD, but I can't. It's illegal for me to circumvent the copy protection of it. However, If I download it from a P2P network, I should be able to legally use that content. I already own a license for it. Sure, it was illegal for the originator of the file on the P2P network to decrypt it, but not for me to download it and use it. (Note: I'm sure this would have trouble holding up in court without digging deep for legal expenses, but...)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Nero Wave Editor doesn't intercept the stream; it records from the sound card's "wave out mix" port. Technically, it doesn't circumvent any type of protection, but I suppose it would still be illegal even if the MP3 is not distributed.

 

I was planning on purchasing the tracks through iTunes later, in case anyone was wondering.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...