|
|
|
|||
| Go to page [Previous] 1~2~3~4~5 [Next] | ||||||||||
Bill Hallahan Inner circle New Hampshire 3222 Posts 
|
I doubt very much that multiple DVDs are shipped in the same DVD case very often.
I'm aware of a lot of illegal copying of ebooks and DVDs. There are entire forums at some Internet sites where this is common. This type of theft is very troubling, because it's very attractive to the young and the naïve, and it hits creators in their wallets. Creators have to feed their families. kihei kid wrote: Quote:
Just an observation (not pointing fingers) but how many times have you seen Joe Schmoe not make a copy of a DVD then turn around and cheat on his taxes. Or cheat on their spouse, or run a red light, or… you get my point. You write, “just an observation”, but I'm not sure what your point is. Do you believe that because some people are thieves, it’s moral and ethical to violate copyright law, or do you think this is wrong? I couldn't infer your view from your post. (Or rather, I thought I could infer your view, but only through implication.) Your presumption that people, specifically music artists, who complain about their material being ripped off have “tried to get away with something” seems unfounded. Do you have any specifics regarding this? Even if you do, wouldn’t this only apply to the artists you have specific knowledge of, and not all artists? I think artists have a right to sue those who are stealing their material. Nathan Pain wrote: Quote:
p.s.s.s. I still understand all the legal reasons not to do it, I just can't stand the "You're taking food out of my baby's mouth!" argument that always comes up in this type of discussion. I mean across the board, not just magic dvd's! Why does this argument bother you? It seems a strong argument to me. While I'm not a lawyer, I expect the legal reason for copyright law applying to people who wouldn’t purchase the DVD at the original cost and who subsequently obtain an illegal copy, is because the law has to apply equally to all people, which includes both those who would, and wouldn't purchase the DVD. It seems obvious that if the law didn't apply equally to everyone, the creator would lose money, since everyone could just get a copy of the original DVD.
Humans make life so interesting. Do you know that in a universe so full of wonders, they have managed to create boredom. Quite astonishing.
- The character of ‘Death’ in the movie "Hogswatch" |
|||||||||
Nathan Pain Inner circle iowa 2826 Posts
|
Bill,
you would have to read my original example to understand my argument...Dr.Dre tried to sue me in that whole napster thing and I won, and he used that argument, so I have my reasons! NP Also Bill...See Puff Daddy for an artist who has gotten "away" with something, like attempted murder. NP
...
|
|||||||||
kihei kid Inner circle Dog House 1039 Posts
|
Bill, on your first question, that is not my call, it is what the law say’s it is.
Allow me to give you an analogy; Joe has downloaded 1 song off of the Internet and Mary has downloaded a 1000. Who is guilty here of breaking the law? The RIAA says Mary is and they are going after (at least this is my understanding) people with a 1000 or more downloads. So everyone who has 999, well… your alright, but don’t you dare download 1000! The law does not state that 999 downloads are O.K. but 1000 is crossing the line, obviously it can’t the line HAS to start at 1. Quote:
On 2004-05-24 14:56, Bill Hallahan wrote: I have a HUGE problem with them suing people, my analogy above is one of the reasons why. Another reason is that they are not starting in their OWN BACKYARD, the sue happy RIAA is going after people they “pick and choose.” I don’t believe for one minute that they don’t have a mother, father, brother, sister, cousin, uncle, friend or neighbor that is doing the exact same thing that the unfortunate person who is facing a lawsuit from them is. The most revolting part of this sick real life scenario is that the people that are doing the suing are regrettably, some of the biggest sharks this world has swimming around in it. If Joe Schmoe is a multi-millionaire from all his platinum albums odds are (extremely, extremely good) that he is cheating the IRS out of millions of dollars each year, hiding it and using it to his advantage. He has “gotten away” with something but is quick to punish someone else, Nathan brings up a beautiful one with Puff Daddy. To answer your second question, it is not unfounded, these are people were talking about.
In loving memory of Hughie Thomasson 1952-2007.
You brought something beautiful to this world, you touched my heart, my soul and my life. You will be greatly missed. Until we meet again “my old friend”. |
|||||||||
|
Bill Hallahan Inner circle New Hampshire 3222 Posts
|
This has gotten slightly off topic since the original post was about duplication of DVDs, however, since the points you make about the RIAA could also be applied to magic creators, I will respond to them.
kihei kid wrote: Quote:
Allow me to give you an analogy; Joe has downloaded 1 song off of the Internet and Mary has downloaded a 1000. Who is guilty here of breaking the law? No, this is not correct. It doesn’t and shouldn’t start at one. Suits involving copyright violation are almost never pursued unless the damages will cover the court costs. For written material, this usually means about 10,000 copies of the same source are copied. (It depends on the original cost of the written material, but that is a typical number for material that would cost about ten dollars a copy.) I wouldn’t be surprised if the RIAA is actually losing money on thess suits. They probably want to send a message. Clearly they couldn’t afford to go after the really small violators, there are just too many and the cost would be prohibitive. They have to pick a number. A thousand is as good as any. I do think there is a fair case that the RIAA has taken advantage of some, perhaps even most, artists, but this doesn’t justify stealing from them. Multiple artists have sued the RIAA, but the court correctly doesn’t consider this when they consider theft of material the RIAA owns. Quote:
If Joe Schmoe is a multi-millionaire from all his platinum albums odds are (extremely, extremely good) that he is cheating the IRS out of millions of dollars each year, hiding it and using it to his advantage. This is false. Yes, there are rich criminals, but not all rich people are criminals. I’d like to know how you determined that most rich people must be crooks. The point isn’t relevant anyway. People do not abrogate all their rights when they commit crimes. Even if they go to jail, it isn't right to steal their material. The character of the creator has no relevance to this topic at all. If your point is that some people are hypocrites, then I would agree, but that hardly justifies stealing from them, nor does it mean that they should allow someone to do so. Even if that viewpoint were valid, the vast majority of artists are not criminals, so unless only the songs of the artists who are criminals are downloaded, the point makes little sense. But, of course, as I wrote above, it’s not a valid argument anyway. Defining victims to be bad is often used to justify stealing from them. I’m not saying you are doing this, but it is common in the recorded history of both con men and petty thieves. It's simply not a valid argument.
Humans make life so interesting. Do you know that in a universe so full of wonders, they have managed to create boredom. Quite astonishing.
- The character of ‘Death’ in the movie "Hogswatch" |
|||||||||
|
Blitzen Regular user 167 Posts
|
The RIAA is suing those that share, not those that download. The reason for this is because anyone using a P2P client can find a certain MP3 and find out that user's IP address. It probably wouldn't be possible, or at least it'd be very difficult to monitor how many downloads are going to a single person since their IP address likely changes quite often.
A I understand it, they're using contingency lawyers so those lawyers probably get their costs and a 1/3 of the settlement so they're not losing money by suing. They also aren't gaining much since none of these cases have gone to court yet. Most have settled for a couple grand. There are some interesting legal arguments to fight the RIAA but since the possible damages are so high, and the arguments aren't exactly iron-clad, I can't imagine a good lawyer suggesting to fight. During my P2P research for a file sharing CLE I've been working on, as well as some articles on my blog, I did see some magic files floating around, some ebooks, some explanatory videos. I didn't download them (but was tempted) although I did download a few MP3s of tracks that I already own to be able to speak about file fidelity. |
|||||||||
|
Nathan Pain Inner circle iowa 2826 Posts
|
Blitzen,
You took the words right out of my mouth...sharing is what the riaa is most concerned with...most leeches will be safe from the riaa. NP
...
|
|||||||||
salsa_dancer Inner circle 1935 Posts
|
I have tried to keep away from this topic as I don't want to get drawn into a moral discussion about rights and wrongs, can get a little preachy
I think the bottom line here is can you look in the mirror and feel good about yourself if you are cheating someone out of money. Regardless of how you feel about multi-millionaire recording artists etc.. Just because they are there and you aren't it is no reason to take it for free. I have been guilty in the past of receiving stuff that I shouldn't have, including magic, and all it succeeded in doing for me was filling me with tremendous guilt over what I had done that I went out and bought the items anyway. The temptation is there, it is how well we resist it that counts..... ;) |
|||||||||
|
kihei kid Inner circle Dog House 1039 Posts
|
Thank for your response Bill, I enjoy having debates such as these.
I am not an expert on were the line starts I would certainly believe it starts at 1 but I could be wrong here and you could be right. It seems to me if you make even 1 illegal copy it would have to be against the law, just because it is not cost effective for them to come after you does not make it right. However the same question still applies if Joe copies 10,000 and Mary copies 100,000 who is guilty of breaking the law? They both are but because it is not “cost effective” Joe skates and Mary goes to jail. Once again they “pick and choose” whom they want to go after, this is a clear and unmistakably double standard. You wrote, “Clearly they couldn’t afford to go after the really small violators, there are just to many and the cost would be prohibitive. They have to pick a number. A thousand is as good as any.” This is where I part ways with you; I have a problem with these statements. The first assumes that it is o.k. to sue one person and let another go just because you yourself are looking for a way to save a buck. It seems to me if they were really interested in justice they would start at the bottom, this would send a message that they REALLY mean business. As it stands now they are a laughable annoyance taking a pathetic swipe at whomever they choose. And the second part of your statement does not work for me either, if they “have to” pick a number why not 1001? Or for that matter 1002 or 217 or 6. There is absolutely no logical explanation to pick an arbitrary number unless… your trying to work things in your favor and save a buck, kind of like the person sharing a couple hundred files or copying a handful of DVD’s. Quote:
On 2004-05-24 19:15, Bill Hallahan wrote: Are you trying to imply that most rich people have not done something or another that is illegal? If you believe for 1 second that any multi-millionaire does not “fudge” the numbers their way to keep as much money as possible (this is a polite way of saying steal), than I have some ocean front property in Arizona for you. You wrote, “the vast majority of artist are not criminals”, I’d like to know how you determined that? My “guess” is the vast majority of artist have “fudged” the numbers on their tax returns, this is illegal, as a matter of fact it is a federal offense, this would make them a criminal. They may have “gotten away” with it, but nonetheless they are still criminals. Of course they would be stealing from what is probably the worst of all offenders, the IRS. And yes that is exactly what I am saying they are a bunch of hypocrites, and, yes you are correct it does not give anybody the green light to steal from them. But as I wrote in my last post if they don’t have the guts to start in their OWN BACKYARD then don’t come over and tell me how to mow mine. The “message” that these sharks are sending is crystal clear to me… we are going to sue people that are sharing files, with the exception of course our own mother, father, brother, sister, friend… these people are exempt from lawsuits. Now, back to my first post, just an observation…
In loving memory of Hughie Thomasson 1952-2007.
You brought something beautiful to this world, you touched my heart, my soul and my life. You will be greatly missed. Until we meet again “my old friend”. |
|||||||||
|
Bill Hallahan Inner circle New Hampshire 3222 Posts
|
Kihei kid wrote:
Quote:
This is where I part ways with you; I have a problem with these statements. The first assumes that it is o.k. to sue one person and let another go just because you yourself are looking for a way to save a buck. Ah, but it is ok. The person stealing is not the wronged party here. Someone who’s being stolen from is totally justified to go after a thief who steals a dime from them, and then let a thousand people who stole a million dollars from them keep the money. The owner is free to give to some and not to others.
Humans make life so interesting. Do you know that in a universe so full of wonders, they have managed to create boredom. Quite astonishing.
- The character of ‘Death’ in the movie "Hogswatch" |
|||||||||
|
Airborne Ranger New user 68 Posts
|
You know, I've only been on this board for a short time, but I know for a fact that there are people on the Café that offer (through the PM system) copies of DVDs for $5-10. You can even get professional looking DVDs with disc graphics that are near silkscreen quality and slipcovers that rival the best four-color press work. It amazes me that the people whom I am speaking of make no bones about it!
On another note, after reading this post I did a quick P2P search for videos and PDF files (ebooks). I found everything from Ackerman to Zarrow (full DVD videos) and nearly every ebook or PDF file ever written. Now, I'd like to say I have never done anything like this but I can't. While it's not something I do on a regular basis, I have crossed over to the dark side at least a few times and yes I've copied a tape or two that a friend loaned me in the past. However, I have never bought, then copied, and then sold a video and I don't use P2P very often (only when I can't find something). Anyone who has half a brain and little to no ethics can find anything he wants. Technology will always outpace the best efforts to protect intellectual work. |
|||||||||
Bill Palmer Eternal Order Only Jonathan Townsend has more than 24306 Posts
|
But the glorious part is that those of us who own the material have so much fun when we find the guys that do it. We know who some of the perps on the Café are. Some of them have been visited by various people who know how to convince them that they are wrong.
There was a computer science instructor in the UK who should have known a bit more about communications than he did. Universities do not take well to having thieves and hackers on their faculties. And the dulcet sounds of knee cartilage being torn loose are so soothing to the human ear!
Note: I do not advocate illegal acts of retribution, nor do I endorse the services of any people who do such things. But one can fantasize.
"The Swatter"
Founder of CODBAMMC My Chickasaw name is "Throws Money at Cups." www.cupsandballsmuseum.com |
|||||||||
|
kihei kid Inner circle Dog House 1039 Posts
|
Quote:
On 2005-08-14 20:14, Bill Hallahan wrote: Not if your interested in REAL justice and I’ll back quote myself here. Quote:
On 2004-05-25 07:21, kihei kid wrote: Next you wrote… Quote:
On 2005-08-14 20:14, Bill Hallahan wrote: I agree and I never said that this is not the case, and I‘ll back quote myself here. Quote:
On 2004-05-25 07:21, kihei kid wrote: You continue to write… Quote:
On 2005-08-14 20:14, Bill Hallahan wrote: Given the broad range or your rebuttal of my response to you, yes you are correct. I’ll say it again, the law is what the lay say’s it is, legally yes, morally no. Were talking about the RIAA here, and I have cited reasons as to why they are in the wrong doing so. Just to name a few they sued an 81 year old man, a deceased 83 year old grandmother, a 12 year old girl and 70 year old lady all the while, NO DOUBT, leaving people in their “own backyard” exempt from these lawsuits. A spokesman for the RIAA said “we are making the lawsuits as random as possible” this statement right here tells you just how big a sharks they truly are. What the true underling meaning of this statement is “we are going to pick and choose whomever we want to sue, so in this way we don’t have to sue people in are own backyard and we can save a buck by suing randomly”. Now I’ll back quote myself again… Quote:
On 2004-05-25 07:21, kihei kid wrote: It bears repeating, if they were truly interested in justice they would start in their OWN BACKYARD, then start at 1 (the dime person) and continue to work their way up (the thousand people who stole a million). I don’t know about you but when a multi-billion dollar company starts crying poor mouth my B.S. meter goes off immediately. What we are discussing and what is going on with those bogus lawsuits reminds me of a scene from the “Godfather Part 2” were the crooked, lying senator went off on mafia don Michael Corleone. "I despise you and your dishonest ways," said the senator to the mafioso, who didn't blink while replying: "Senator, we're both part of the same hypocrisy."
In loving memory of Hughie Thomasson 1952-2007.
You brought something beautiful to this world, you touched my heart, my soul and my life. You will be greatly missed. Until we meet again “my old friend”. |
|||||||||
|
Bill Palmer Eternal Order Only Jonathan Townsend has more than 24306 Posts
|
The suits the RIAA had against the grandmother and the little girl were settled out of court. They were done specifically to put the fear of the authorities in EVERYONE who was sharing OPW. (That's Other People's Works).
Rest assured that the RIAA is also going after ALL of the real offenders. There are several groups going after copyright violators. There are several classifications of violators. The RIAA handles the file-sharers. ASCAP, BMI and SESAC handle the performance rights end of it. I find it ironic that people who say that it's too late to do anything about it really get upset when people do things about it.
"The Swatter"
Founder of CODBAMMC My Chickasaw name is "Throws Money at Cups." www.cupsandballsmuseum.com |
|||||||||
|
kihei kid Inner circle Dog House 1039 Posts
|
Quote:
On 2005-08-24 01:32, Bill Palmer wrote: They're so nice. Quote:
They were done specifically to put the fear of the authorities in EVERYONE who was sharing OPW. (That's Other People's Works). Picking and choosing whomever they feel like running over all the while leaving people that are close to them exempt from these lawsuits along with others were it makes no sense finically for them to sue. In other words these hypocrites are not interested in real justice they're interested in trying to save a buck just like the people who are sharing a handful of files. Quote:
Rest assured that the RIAA is also going after ALL of the real offenders. This is were I part ways with you Bill. They carefully calculated a plan of action and have since implemented it, these big business sharks are nobody’s fool. This is the reason for their statement and the arbitrary number that they chose. The big bully on the street has gotten his way by shaking down whichever kid (no pun intended) they felt like, while leaving his own brothers, sisters, cousins and neighbors alone.
In loving memory of Hughie Thomasson 1952-2007.
You brought something beautiful to this world, you touched my heart, my soul and my life. You will be greatly missed. Until we meet again “my old friend”. |
|||||||||
|
Bill Hallahan Inner circle New Hampshire 3222 Posts
|
Kihei kid,
The RIAA uses random selection of those they sue as a deterrent. If they only sued people in a single area, it wouldn’t have any effect on most of the country. The thieves who were outside the region where the suits happened would continue to steal. So your idea of suing in one region would have very little effect on the amount of theft. This is about protecting the RIAA, not the guilty. As long as the thieves are afraid they might be sued, they'll be less inclined to continue to steal. Deterrence is a good thing. Kihei kid wrote: Quote:
Were talking about the RIAA here, and I have cited reasons as to why they are in the wrong doing so. Yes, you cited reasons, but none of those reasons make any sense. The ages of the people who stole songs has no relevance whatsoever. You aren’t seriously proposing that people who break the law at certain ages shouldn’t be accountable, or, if they are below the legal age, that their parents shouldn't be accountable? I can't imagine why you would think that. The suit against the deceased person isn't relevant either. Defendants sometimes die before or during their trial. This is not the plaintiff's fault. And your argument regarding suing people in one region would be largely ineffective and thus fails to protect the RIAA, which, of course, is the purpose of the suits. I fail to see why you're not on the RIAA's side of this particular issue, even if you don't like the RIAA for some other reason. The RIAA has a right to protect their business, and your solution won't do that. Theirs might, and will definitely reduce theft far more than yours. Kihei kid wrote: Quote:
There is absolutely no logical explanation to pick an arbitrary number unless… your trying to work things in your favor and save a buck, kind of like the person sharing a couple hundred files or copying a handful of DVD’s. and Kihei kid wrote: Quote:
In other words these hypocrites are not interested in real justice they're interested in trying to save a buck just like the people who are sharing a handful of files. I make a distinction between money saved when someone is trying to protect their propertly legally and money saved through theft of that very property. And do I have this correct? You believe that the party that's stolen from must go after every thief who stole from them equally. In other words, You believe that if a burglar broke into someone's house and the homeowner chased the burglar down the street and caught him, then they must do that the next time someone breaks into their house to be fair. You believe they shouldn't let the next burglar who breaks into their house go, or they'd be a hypocrite. You believe the party being stolen from is morally required to exert the same effort, take the same risk, incur the same cost, to catch every burglar the same way after they catch the first one. That's how I interpret what you wrote. Again, you feel the people who you acknowledge to be stealing are being wronged! The way I see it, the people who steal who don't get sued are lucky. The people who are sued are being treated fairly if they're guilty. And since suing someone takes resources, the person being stolen from is perfectly justified to sue just some of the thieves as a deterrent.
Humans make life so interesting. Do you know that in a universe so full of wonders, they have managed to create boredom. Quite astonishing.
- The character of ‘Death’ in the movie "Hogswatch" |
|||||||||
|
kihei kid Inner circle Dog House 1039 Posts
|
Bill, thank you for your thoughts and as a side note I enjoy reading your posts throughout the café. I hope I’m able to convey my thoughts to you on your questions, it’s always fascinating for me to see how others view things in life, anyway, here goes…
First of all without getting to deep here, Sharing music on the internet is illegal according to the law. I’m not so sure the law is correct on this ruling, maybe yes, maybe no, but either way the law says it is illegal (at least here in the U.S.). If my buddy has an album that he does not like or has no more use for, and wants to give it to me or trade me for one I don’t want (share or trade) is this illegal? If the RIAA had their way it would be. Music coming over the airways is the property of the receiver so long as they don’t reproduce and sell it, I have always thought how can this be? They purposely send music over the airway’s and actually fight for you to listen to it then tell you OBTW don’t record it! Huh? The airways are the property of the public not the RIAA, so is the internet. There are many things the law says we can and can not do, some of it laughable, on top of that some of the vary people that make up these laws turn right around and break them or other laws then point the finger at you. And on another note (another pun) it’s an entirely different can of worms when you get into whether or not the RIAA was actually losing money in the first place and not “fudging” the numbers in their favor (just like their tax returns). And if they were losing money who’s to say that the junk they called music was not a big part of it, many a parents around the world hear the garbage that is spewed out of the mouths of these “R-teest”, violence, profanity, murder, disrespect for others. Oh yeah, mom and dad are really going to fork out their hard earned dollar for this stuff… not. This continues to this day, why is it that the RIAA does little or nothing about this? Money. They are in the business of making and saving money first and foremost. There are numerous indications that they were NOT losing money as they had proposed. Why does this not surprise me? Because these big business sharks will obviously say and do anything to work things in their favor. Quote:
On 2005-08-27 05:15, Bill Hallahan wrote: Not to mention to save money and to work things in their favor. I’m curious as to whether you think theft deterrent was their main or only motivation. Quote:
If they only sued people in a single area, it wouldn’t have any effect on most of the country. The thieves who were outside the region where the suits happened would continue to steal. O.K. you lost me here, were did I say anything about suing in one region? I have clearly stated that if they are really interested in justice (which they are not) as opposed to trying to save a buck they would have started in their own backyard. Is this what you mean by region? Quote:
Deterrence is a good thing. When done correctly it is. IMHO when you’re a multi million dollar big business it’s not the best idea in the world to walk over some old people and children to make your point. Quote:
Yes, you cited reasons, but none of those reasons make any sense. You quoted me from one post but failed to cite my other reasons from another. On top of that please re-read what you back quoted me on. Their suing old people and children and leaving people in their own backyard ALONE. Is this how you define justice? If it is you and I have different outlook on justice. Quote:
The ages of the people who stole songs has no relevance whatsoever. You aren’t seriously proposing that people who break the law at certain ages shouldn’t be accountable, or, if they are below the legal age, that their parents shouldn't be accountable? I can't imagine why you would think that. Of course I don’t think that, I never stated that I did, your implying here. All I’m saying is that the way their going about it leaves a lot to be desired. Quote:
I fail to see why you're not on the RIAA's side of this particular issue Ditto. Here’s why… If people are downloading 999 songs their not thieves according to the RIAA but if they download 1000 they are. I wonder what would happen it everybody only downloaded 999 songs, would the RIAA change their tune (I love puns). My guess is they would go right back into court and cry pour mouth again and say the new and improved number is 500 or 600 or what have you. Before, if you downloaded 1000 songs you were a thief but now that everybody is stopping on 999 we have changed our mind, now you’re a thief if you download 500! Then everybody stops at 499... When is a person a thief? Logic tells me if they downloaded 1 (one) song, so if they were interested in true justice they would have started with people close to them THEN they would have went after all the people that downloaded 1 song and worked their way up. But in fact their not. Their interested in saving a buck just like everybody else. Here is another analogy, it is obviously a guess but more than likely a fairly accurate one. Their going through all the random (cough, cough) names they have. Low and behold two of the names on the list are Johnny Smith, and Jimmy Williams, Johnny is the neighbor kid (or nephew or what have you) of one of the executives for the RIAA and Jimmy is no one of their concern, Johnny has downloaded 8325 songs and Jimmy has downloaded 1001. Will Johnny face a lawsuit? No. Will Jimmy face a lawsuit? You betcha’. Is this justice? The answer is obviously, no. If they were interested in true justice and wanted a real theft-deterrent they would have sued any and all people close to them FIRST, then started suing people with only 1 download and made it public at the same time. Instead people that are close to them, no doubt, are allowed to skate while others, 1 thru 999 are not considered thieves! This is not only completely illogical but total hypocrisy. Quote:
I make a distinction between money saved when someone is trying to protect their property legally and money saved through theft of that very property. It’s not a matter of what I believe, what I believe does not matter. It’s a matter of what the RIAA thinks. Once the courts ruled in the RIAA’s favor what “I believe” they should have done was to eliminate sites such as Kazaa and Napster and S***W the EULA (end user license agreement), nobody, but nobody reads these anyways. When the pathetic RIAA decided to start going after the individual (you know, the vary same people that have supported them for all these years) they made a mistake in how they did it. It’s not a matter of equally in my mind as it is strategically. RIAA Exec #1... “ How about we sue people in are own ranks FIRST then tell everyone with one download their next, this is the ultimate theft deterrent as it will stop everyone from 1 to 1 million”! RIAA Exec #2 “No way, I’m not suing anyone close to me and our accountant says it’s not in our best interest financially, we need to save a buck so well come up with the number that saves us some money and go from there”. RIAA Exec #3 “Good thinking, now lets get the focus group ready for the spin on the media”. Quote:
In other words, You believe that if a burglar broke into someones house and the homeowner chased the burglar down the street and caught him, then they must do that the next time someone breaks into their house to be fair. You believe they shouldn't let the next burglar who breaks into their house go, or they'd be a hypocrite. You believe the party being stolen from is morally required to exert the same effort, take the same risk, incur the same cost, to catch every burglar the same way after they catch the first one. That's how I interpret what you wrote. I like to keep my analogies a little closer to home (pun intended again). A guy goes into a store and steals 999 pieces of gum and the owner lets him go. This time a friend of the family steals 2000 pieces but he lets him go. Next time some other guy goes into the store and steals 1000 pieces of gum and he prosecutes him for it. Is the guy who stole 999 pieces wronged? No, he’s actually free to steal another day, same as the friend of the family (some theft deterrent that was). Is the guy who stole 1000 pieces wronged? No, but the owner has some serious character flaws he needs to address. As you can clearly see I could have inserted the RIAA and what is going on in these sick real life lawsuits. According to the RIAA if you download 999 songs your cool but if you download 1000 you’re a thief. So all anyone has to do is to download 999 songs or less and there is nothing to worry about, that is until the RIAA redefines what a thief is. Quote:
Again, you feel the people who you acknowledge to be stealing are being wronged! Incorrect. I clearly stated once (5/25/04) and back quoted myself as well, of course they can sue whomever is stealing from them, however if your main interest is true justice they would have done it correctly. Instead these big business sharks sued in their own best interest, not for justice. Quote:
The way I see it, the people who steal who don't get sued are lucky. Your correct! Their lucky the RIAA was trying to save a buck, just like them. Quote:
The people who are sued are being treated fairly if they're guilty. I disagree. How is it fair that if you downloaded 999 songs your not a thief, but if you downloaded a 1000 you are? Quote:
And since suing someone takes resources, the person being stolen from is perfectly justified to sue just some of the thieves as a deterrent. Again, the “some” people that you speak of are people with an egregious amount! If they were interested in true justice they would start in their own backyard then start with the people that have 1 single download. They want to save a buck by suing who their accountant told them to sue, not unlike the vary people that are trying to save a buck in their lives by SHARING a song with one another. You see Bill in real life the RIAA is throwing their weight around thumping their chest and saying we are tough on people who steal from us. But in actuality if the people they ended up suing had downloaded a few less songs or had they been a family, friend or neighbor of someone at the RIAA they would not have faced a lawsuit. In the end what does this all mean? Nothing to some life changing to others. People have been sharing music for a loooong time now, the dog comes with some fleas. People will always find a way to share music, as of this writing I can come up with a few ways to get music for free or on the cheap without going to a website. I agree with you on some of your points. I will probably forever be undecided as to whether it is O.K. to share files or record something off the airways. I agree that the RIAA has the right to sue whomever they want, I disagree on how they are going about it. I do not believe that the random (cough, cough) number was something that they thought of off the top of their head. To me the RIAA is nothing more than a bunch of big business sharks with deep pockets to fund many a lawyer, accountant and focus group to work things in their favor, I also feel that they could care less whether they squashed elderly people with little income just to shore up the bottom line and make a point. I do believe they now see how that made them look in the public's eye and goofed on that one.
In loving memory of Hughie Thomasson 1952-2007.
You brought something beautiful to this world, you touched my heart, my soul and my life. You will be greatly missed. Until we meet again “my old friend”. |
|||||||||
|
Bill Palmer Eternal Order Only Jonathan Townsend has more than 24306 Posts
|
Since I am apparently the only one whose ox is being gored here, let me state this: the RIAA does not own the music. They are an agency that collects for performers and/or authors. In other words, they collect the money and the distribute it to me.
The people who are being injured are not a bunch of big business sharks as has been contended here. They are ordinary people whose work is being stolen. While the airways and the internet may belong to the public, the right to use the airways is determined by the government. And the material being broadcast over both the airways and the internet belongs to the people who wrote it. I often see this ridiculous question about "Well if I buy a book/DVD/album/tape and I get tired of it, can I give it to a friend or sell it?" Of course you can. You just can't make a copy of it and give that to him. Copyright means "right to make copies." It's that simple. There is an explicit right to control the number of copies made. And file sharing is simply giving away illegal copies, unless you pay a royalty for them. BE very careful. Those of us in the business are tired of people ripping us off. I lose approximately 50% of my income due to illegal copies and file sharing. Do I have any sympathy for any thief? **** no! I don't care if it is a granny in Idaho or a 12 year old in Nebraska. I do feel that they should be warned first. That's only fair. But once they are warned, if they don't do what they are supposed to do -- go after them.
"The Swatter"
Founder of CODBAMMC My Chickasaw name is "Throws Money at Cups." www.cupsandballsmuseum.com |
|||||||||
|
kihei kid Inner circle Dog House 1039 Posts
|
Quote:
On 2005-08-30 14:59, Bill Palmer wrote: Not trying to intentionally or otherwise gore anybody here, just an exchange of ideas, that’s all. Quote:
The people who are being injured are not a bunch of big business sharks as has been contended here. Huh? The RIAA is a trade association whose members create, manufacture and /or distribute approximately 84% of all sound recordings produced and sold in the U.S. The RIAA are the ones running around saying their losing money, if they had nothing at stake here they would not be in court in the first place. Quote:
They are ordinary people whose work is being stolen. If you consider names such as Michael Jackson, Mariah Carey and Garth Brooks as “ordinary” then I agree with you wholeheartedly. It’s funny, the way I see it, these so-called “random” (cough, cough) lawsuits are oppressive and unfair, as large law firms financed by the RIAA sue ordinary working people for thousands of dollars. To my knowledge none of the estimated 13,500 ordinary Americans have been found guilty of anything because not one of them has ever appeared before a judge. It's clearly impossible for an ordinary person with ordinary resources to take on the multi-billion-dollar industry with its bottomless pockets and legions of highly paid lawyers. Not that this stops RIAA spinsters from implying thousands of people have been found ‘guilty’ of the crime of sharing music with each other, an assertion faithfully repeated by the mainstream media as though it comes from credible sources. And the time-honored maxim “Innocent until proven Guilty” goes by the board. Quote:
And the material being broadcast over both the airways and the internet belongs to the people who wrote it. This is were the grey area is for me, it’s the airways for crying out loud! You “purposely” broadcast music over the airways and fight for everyone to listen to it, then tell everybody not to record it on a device that is meant for this very purpose! The airways are the property of the public not the RIAA. Quote:
I often see this ridiculous question about "Well if I buy a book/DVD/album/tape and I get tired of it, can I give it to a friend or sell it?" Of course you can. You just can't make a copy of it and give that to him. Then why is it Sony (one of the big 5 record labels) has made copying devices for years on end now? The very company that deals with these artist makes devices that they know for sure will be used to copy the very music they don’t want you to copy! Quote:
And file sharing is simply giving away illegal copies To my knowledge this is not entirely true. I don't think mere file sharing is a copyright violation. If someone can share a copyrighted C.D. without violating the copyright laws, why couldn't they share a digital song without violating the copyright laws? Quote:
Do I have any sympathy for any thief? **** no! To bad the RIAA does. If they were to sue fairly and honestly across the board I’d have more sympathy for them. Quote:
I don't care if it is a granny in Idaho or a 12 year old in Nebraska. Neither does the RIAA. That is as long as the granny or 12 year old is not related to them.
In loving memory of Hughie Thomasson 1952-2007.
You brought something beautiful to this world, you touched my heart, my soul and my life. You will be greatly missed. Until we meet again “my old friend”. |
|||||||||
|
Bill Hallahan Inner circle New Hampshire 3222 Posts
|
Quote:
I addressed the difference between saving money through theft and saving money through moves to stop the very same theft in my previous post. You ignored it. There is absolutely nothing wrong with a business saving money in this fashion. Saving money is not necessarily immoral and it definitely isn’t in this case. I will not address this point again since you already ignored it. When you write, the business is saving money, like it’s something bad, you weaken all your arguments because it makes no sense. You also repeat arguments that have been addressed, without providing any justification, such as the idea that it’s wrong to sue (or prosecute) a person, or the person’s parents, because of their age. I will not address this point again unless you supply some reason for this assertion that it’s somehow bad to sue the parents of the young or the old. Quote:
I agree with Bill. There is absolutely nothing wrong with making money, and they support thousands of artists, technical workers, and their families. Is it a perfect system? I have no idea. What I do know is that you don't like them for some reason. Let's consider that, not the reason, but the significance of that. What is the point of your vilifying the RIAA in this topic? You posted earlier that it was wrong to steal from them. So let's move past who they are and instead consider how they could stop the theft. Agreed? If you don't agree, then explain how who they are relates to how the theft should be allowed to continue. Once you make that assertion, you’d be contradicting your self since you already stated the theft is wrong, unless, you somehow can simultaneously advocate the theft while maintaining it is wrong! I don’t buy the, "They’re bad so others can be bad too" type arguments. Nor does the law. I don’t expect you’ll make that argument anyway since you already said you thought it was wrong to steal from them. So, let’s look at it objectively.
Number 4 is important for you to understand. It's not the case that when your business becomes very successful that you should suddenly allow people to steal from you. Quote:
Irrelevant, I wrote nothing about they person who was let go, the quote only refers to those who are guilty and sued, not to those who are guilty and not sued. Therefore your argument, which also refers to those who are not sued, is irrelevant to my statement. The guilty cannot be less guilty because others steal too. Also, you incorrectly presume that if someone is not sued, or prosecuted, that they are not a thief. If they steal, they are, by definition, a thief. Also, they are not “innocent until proven guilty” as you wrote in your post above, but rather they are “presumed innocent until proven guilty. The law does not allow the presumption of guilt, but it does not state that guilt follows from prosecution, but rather from the act. If, however, you meant instead, “How is it fair that if you download 999 songs you’re not sued, but if you download 1000, you are” then the answer is simple. It’s perfectly fair. As I described above, it takes the plaintiff resources to sue someone, and they also assume risk. You ignored that portion of my post, and that is central to my arguments. It is logistically and financially impossible for the RIAA to sue everyone who has stolen from them. There would be hundreds of thousands and/or millions of lawsuits. Due to the nature of computers, networks, and the Internet, many would be difficult to prove. The burden of proof is on the plaintiff, not he defendant, so the plaintiff takes a risk suing someone. It can incur real costs if they lose, and they can even be counter-sued. Even if the defendant is totally guilty, if they get off on a technicality, the plaintiff loses money. It is real financial risk. So, you state they it's not fair they don't sue everyone. Guess what. Neither city, State, or Federal prosecutors go after every case where they think someone is guilty. If the risk is high that they’ll lose of course they don’t prosecute, it takes taxpayer money and time. And the defendant might be innocent in those cases too. But when they have lots of circumstantial evidence, and the crime isn’t serious, the case might be in the 50%/50% category, i.e. they win 50% of those types of cases. They’ll probably try to plea bargain. If they can’t, they might let someone go if they aren’t absolutely sure they’ll win. It might not be worth the risk if the crime isn’t serious, especially if they have serious crimes on the docket. In the real world, resources are limited. The police are the same way. If they’re writing someone a speeding ticket, and they get called for a bank robbery, they might let the speeder go with a warning. And you seem to be fixated on the 1000 song limit and the fact that they don’t sue everyone, yet clearly they can't sue everyone. It's not practical. So, since they can't sue everyone, do you propose that they sue nobody? Regarding the theft only, what would you do if you were the RIAA? Cases where only one song was stolen can’t all be won. It’s rather obvious why the burden of proof would be too difficult in cases like that. It’s also obvious the cost for one song wouldn’t justify the legal costs. So please, provide a practical alternative. I already refuted the idea of one region, whatever that means if the thieves can recognize it. Only people in that “region” won’t steal. You reject what’s being done without providing any practical alternative. As I pointed out in my previous posts, your alternative won't stop the theft.
Humans make life so interesting. Do you know that in a universe so full of wonders, they have managed to create boredom. Quite astonishing.
- The character of ‘Death’ in the movie "Hogswatch" |
|||||||||
|
kihei kid Inner circle Dog House 1039 Posts
|
Quote:
On 2005-09-06 18:29, Bill Hallahan wrote: I apologize if I did. I have tried to address everyone’s questions to the best of my abilities without going into a diatribe that would take up 15 pages on this here thread. OBTW you still have not answered some of the questions I have put forth to you… Quote:
There is absolutely nothing wrong with a business saving money in this fashion. Saving money is not necessarily immoral and it definitely isn’t in this case. I highly disagree. As I have written here numerous times, no doubt they are letting people in their own backyard skate. Quote:
When you write, the business is saving money, like it’s something bad, you weaken all your arguments because it makes no sense. I disagree. IMHO it’s not O.K. to let people associated with the RIAA skate, define what a thief is, use tactics that make hackers envious, have a monopoly on the music industry and cheat on your taxes. None of these things are bad business practices? Bill, these guys are sharks! There not your local do-gooders. They will do any and everything including what I have just addressed, plus who knows what else. To my knowledge, nobody but nobody has had their day in court. Why? When presented with the option of just sucking it up and paying $3,000 to $10,000 and going on with your life, or spending time in court, paying lawyers' fees and risking huge fines nearing a million dollars, the prudent choice for many is to simply take the deal. It's almost a form of legalized extortion. Out of the thousands of lawsuits it’s highly likely that at least one (any probably many more) person(s) may have been innocent but never got their just do in court because they can’t afford to fight. In my eyes this is “bad”, real bad. Quote:
You also repeat arguments that have been addressed, without providing any justification, such as the idea that it’s wrong to sue (or prosecute) a person, or the person’s parents, because of their age. I will not address this point again unless you supply some reason for this assertion that it’s somehow bad to sue the parents of the young or the old. I have posted twice now why it’s not good for a multi-million dollar company to sue the young and old please re-read my August 30th post. OBTW the RIAA has realized for quite some time now and is making every attempt to avoid suing people in these age ranges because of the public backlash that they have encountered. ONE case in point was in September of 03, in the RIAA's subpoena-and-sue strategy it was blatantly obvious that they had been a bit hasty (to say the least). They openly admitted that one of the lawsuits they filed was a mistake (ooops, sorry about that) and there's no evidence the woman in question shared any music files. They therefore dropped the lawsuit against the 66-year-old woman who doesn't even seem sure what file sharing software is - and is highly unlikely (to say the least, again) to have been sharing hardcore rap songs, as the RIAA contended in the lawsuit they filed against her. As incredible as this story may seem and as further evidence that their lawsuits are a sick real life scenario and even more proof that what they are doing is wrong, the despicable RIAA's lawyers were not apologetic about their mistake, saying: "Please note, however, that we will continue our review of the issues you raised and we reserve the right to re-file the complaint against Mrs. Ward if and when circumstances warrant." How nice of them. Couldn't the RIAA now be accused of filing frivolous lawsuits? While the internet account may be in this woman's name, the burden should be on the RIAA to prove who did the actual sharing -- not who owns the account. They are mowing over the innocent along with the guilty. Quote:
I agree with Bill. There is absolutely nothing wrong with making money, and they support thousands of artists, technical workers, and their families. Lets not even go here! I could give you a laundry list of artists that don’t like being associated with the RIAA. Quote:
Is it a perfect system? I have no idea. What I do know is that you don't like them for some reason. Let's consider that, not the reason, but the significance of that. And for some reason you do like them, let’s consider the significance of that as well. Quote:
What is the point of your vilifying the RIAA in this topic? You posted earlier that it was wrong to steal from them. So let's move past who they are and instead consider how they could stop the theft. Agreed? I already addressed this, and I'll back quote myself here... Quote:
On 2004-05-25 07:21, kihei kid wrote: You continue to write... Quote:
I don’t buy the, "They’re bad so others can be bad too" type arguments. Nor does the law. Neither do I. and I have stated it, back quoted myself several times on this thread and one more time (and hopefully for the last time) write it again, just because the RIAA is a bunch of thieves does not make it right for someone else to steal from them. It does however make them a bunch of hypocrites. And the way they are going about the lawsuits is not only morally reprehensible and out and out disgusting but it is altering the outcome, and, unfortunately, the income of NO DOUBT innocent people, quite possibly changing their lives forever. They are nothing more than a big business shark-machine that will do any and everything to get their way. Quote:
So, let’s look at it objectively. Agreed, but you left out BIG business. You also left out sharks. Quote:
There is nothing necessarily wrong with businesses making money. (And I am quite surprised you keep mentioning that they are trying to make/save a buck, like it's something bad). True and false. The key word in your sentence being necessarily, it depends on how they go about it and the RIAA track record is… well let’s say less then exemplary. Bill what if their cheating on their taxes? This would be a way of saving and/or making money. In other words the big business sharks are stealing, is that O.K.? Quote:
Anything someone they might do wrong with their business doesn’t justify the file sharing theft cases. I have agreed to this numerous times. But like it or not it’s still hypocrisy. Quote:
They have a right to try to stop the theft. Legally yes. Morally they leave a lot to be desired. Quote:
Also, you incorrectly presume that if someone is not sued, or prosecuted, that they are not a thief. Incorrect. And I’ll back quote myself here… Quote:
On 2004-05-25 07:21, kihei kid wrote: You continue to write... Quote:
Also, they are not “innocent until proven guilty” as you wrote in your post above, but rather they are “presumed innocent until proven guilty. The law does not allow the presumption of guilt, but it does not state that guilt follows from prosecution, but rather from the act. Your splitting hairs with me here. Quote:
The burden of proof is on the plaintiff, not he defendant, so the plaintiff takes a risk suing someone. It can incur real costs if they lose, and they can even be counter-sued. Even if the defendant is totally guilty, if they get off on a technicality, the plaintiff loses money. It is real financial risk. Some risk. Nobody can afford to fight and the innocent get run over along with the guilty and nobody but nobody has had their day in court. Quote:
So, you state they it's not fair they don't sue everyone. Huh? Were did I in any of my post state they had to sue everyone? I never did. I have clearly stated over and over that IF they were interested in justice and not saving a buck they would have started within their own organization, then, go after the folks with one download and worked their way up. To me it would have been more prudent (not to mention morally responsible) to start within your own organization, then START with the folks that are sharing a minute handful of music, in that way it would scare the majority on up, if not all the file swappers out there. IMHO this is a real theft deterrent instead of telling everyone from 999 on down your O.K. but just one more and your not, I fail to see the logic unless your trying to work the numbers in your favor which in exactly what they are doing. Quote:
you seem to be fixated on the 1000 song limit Again, 999 your safe but 1000 and your not. One song?! Give me a break. Quote:
So, since they can't sue everyone, do you propose that they sue nobody? No. I have stated numerous times that I propose they start in their own backyard first before going on their sue happy binge and start in on the general public. Quote:
Regarding the theft only, what would you do if you were the RIAA? Well there are millions of downloader’s out there, no doubt they have found some related to their own organization how about starting there? Quote:
Cases where only one song was stolen can’t all be won. Who’s going to fight them? Nobody has the resources like the RIAA to do so. And if you can’t start at one then why not 50 or a 100? Surely people are not making the same mistake 50 or a 100 times, as I have written before the reason they are not doing this and the reason for the arbitrary (cough, cough) number THEY came up with, is because, the RIAA is trying to save a buck just like the very people they are suing. Quote:
It’s also obvious the cost for one song wouldn’t justify the legal costs. So please, provide a practical alternative. Once again, who can afford to fight them. IF that were the case then that is their though luck. If they would have stayed on top of their business and technology they would not be were they are right now. Mowing over the innocent with the guilty while leaving people associated with them alone is the RIAA’s way of “practical”. Doing the right thing is almost always going to be more expensive and more painful. Quote:
You reject what’s being done without providing any practical alternative. As I have already stated several times if they had STARTED in their own backyard THEN went after people with one download EVERYBODY would know they mean business. If they had done this everyone with multiple downloads would be running for the hills, but, because they chose to save a buck everyone from 1 to 999 are helping themselves, some theft deterrent. As it stands now (unless they have changed the number) I can go to one of the many popular sites on the web and download 999 songs and not have to worry about being prosecuted. Then change my IP address and start all over again! Or if I want to be real safe I can click over to one of these sites as of this writing and download 300 or 400 songs… repeat! Q: How is suing folks with a 1000 or more a REAL theft deterrent? A: It ain’t. The multi-billion dollar RIAA came up with their random (cough, cough) number to save money and sue whomever they wanted and used the mainstream media to put the scare into SOME. Once again, it’s all about the almighty buck. They are trying to save money just like the vary people their suing.
In loving memory of Hughie Thomasson 1952-2007.
You brought something beautiful to this world, you touched my heart, my soul and my life. You will be greatly missed. Until we meet again “my old friend”. |
|||||||||
| The Magic Cafe Forum Index » » Food for thought » » Buying DVDs by Mistake (0 Likes) | ||||||||||
| Go to page [Previous] 1~2~3~4~5 [Next] | ||||||||||
Posted: May 24, 2004 06:56 pm 
| [ Top of Page ] |
|
All content & postings Copyright © 2001-2023 Steve Brooks. All Rights Reserved. This page was created in 0.28 seconds requiring 5 database queries. |
|
The views and comments expressed on The Magic Café are not necessarily those of The Magic Café, Steve Brooks, or Steve Brooks Magic. > Privacy Statement < 
|