Volconvo is a debate forum for the discussion of political, religious, and news-based topics.

Waychel · Dec 12, 2003, 03:11 pm

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by
You said, i had no statistics. I just proved, that you could get some.<hr size="1" /></blockquote>

Let me repeat what I originally said:

"The difference here is that estimated losses can be based upon statistics. When the RIAA sued a 12-year-old girl from NYC over distributing mp3s on KaZaA, their speculation was backed by numbers: those the girl distributed to, and the chances of those being prospective buyers. Here however, you are speaking of one individual. There is no knowing whether that one individual would have bought that CD or not. There is no room for statistic analysis."

To clarify there, the RIAA could show that this girl sent her mp3s to several thousand people. Of those several thousand people, they argued, at least one thousand would have been buyers.

However, this comparison cannot be applied to a single person as you say. The statistics would be entirely un-related to that individual because they would be based on the actions of others, and not the individual. You cannot apply the statistics of the masses and apply them to a specific individual to second-guess their actions. Maybe in Nazi Germany, you could.

Such a ridiculous argument of mind-reading proportions would never hold up in court and is simply ridiculous. Likewise, there would be no point, as I previously pointed out:

"Take a look at the RIAA's recent legal actions taken against KaZaA users: all are on the basis of "estimated losses incurred by illegal distribution". The legal grounds are SOLELY based upon potential losses, because that is where the actual crime is. However, you cannot hold somebody who makes up .1% of those potential losses accountable for $30,000 in damages (or whatever amount the RIAA claims) when they've only incurred maybe 5 cents of that themselves. This is why the only individuals who are and ever can be held responsible for those losses are those that distribute this material to the thousands of people that make up the statistics."

Your argument is inconsistent, if not totally illogical - even if it is just a hypothetical situation. Not to mention it is in total contradiction of the ethics of the judicial system of this country.

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by
I am not changing my argument. You said that record label, would not suffer any costs. I just posted an example of where they would.<hr size="1" /></blockquote>

I never claimed that the RIAA would not suffer any losses. What I claimed and pointed out was:

"The fault would not be upon these individuals who downloaded that album, but the individuals who distributed the album to them originally. I explained this in my previous posts."

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by
I do not think, i am having a problem. I think your having a problem with semantics.

Cheat:- deceive, trick, swindle, DEFRAUD, dupe, hoodwink, doble-cross.

To DEFRAUD is to rip-off.

To rip-off is to steal.

Oh look, word play. Lets play with words, till it is not 'stealing' anymore. Let's make it morally right ?!#<hr size="1" /></blockquote>

None of these words are "steal". There is a difference between cheat, defruad, rip-off, and steal. This isn't word play, its how the legal system works: If you charge someone with a crime, you have to be specific as to what crime it is. As I have stated numerous times, the issue of morals here is a personal one. However, legally, this is not "stealing" and you only need to look at every court case regarding un-licensed digital media to confirm this. No one has ever been charged on the grounds of stealing or theft.

If you have such a problem with how our legal system works in its protection of the people from frivolous and vague charges of theft, then I suggest you write to your congressman. Arguing with me - telling me that this "isn't true" when it is undeniably so - isn't going to change anything.

darwinist · Dec 12, 2003, 03:52 pm

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by
There is no knowing whether that one individual would have bought that CD or not. There is no room for statistic analysis."<hr size="1" /></blockquote>

Ok lets break this down.

Question.

If you own the a free ablum, would you go to the shops to buy one?
Would any individual?

Anwser.

Probably not.

What percentage as a statistic would buy the ablum in question?

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by
However, this comparison cannot be applied to a single person as you say. The statistics would be entirely un-related to that individual because they would be based on the actions of others, and not the individual. You cannot apply the statistics of the masses and apply them to a specific individual to second-guess their actions. Maybe in Nazi Germany, you could.<hr size="1" /></blockquote>

I never said that it should be applied. I was just trying to point out, that it is in fact 'stealing'. And how people where justifing 'stealing' by calling it something else and because it is easy to do.

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by
I never claimed that the RIAA would not suffer any losses. What I claimed and pointed out was:

"The fault would not be upon these individuals who downloaded that album, but the individuals who distributed the album to them originally. I explained this in my previous posts."<hr size="1" /></blockquote>

Ok. But the individual is still responsible. Without demand, they is no market. In the UK, a person can steal something. Lets say 100 albums, sell them at a local market. If you buy those albums, you can be proscuted for 'receiving' 'stolen' goods.

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by
None of these words are "steal". There is a difference between cheat, defruad, rip-off, and steal. This isn't word play, its how the legal system works: If you charge someone with a crime, you have to be specific as to what crime it is. As I have stated numerous times, the issue of morals here is a personal one. However, legally, this is not "stealing" and you only need to look at every court case regarding un-licensed digital media to confirm this. No one has ever been charged on the grounds of stealing or theft.

If you have such a problem with how our legal system works in its protection of the people from frivolous and vague charges of theft, then I suggest you write to your congressman. Arguing with me - telling me that this "isn't true" when it is undeniably so - isn't going to change anything.<hr size="1" /></blockquote>

Which book are you reading from???

To defruad the system of cash/goods or services is 'stealing'.

To rip something off. Is 'stealing'.

Why would i want to write to a congressman, i live in the Netherlands....

As it says in my 'profile'.

Waychel · Dec 12, 2003, 04:03 pm

I'm sorry, but I see no purpose in continuing to repeat myself here for verbatim. I can see we're just going to be here for yet another 5 pages or more. I'm going to give you the last word on this. You can call it "stealing" or whatever you wish. But the bottom line is that in the US, downloading and listening to music is not illegal, nor does any misuse of un-licensed material constitute as theft in court.

Also, to answer your question: My whole interest in foreign music stemmed from downloading it. I used to have every B'z album in mp3 form on my computer. Today I own every album, every "best of" CD, every concert tour DVD... So yes, many people do buy music after they listen to it. Why? Because listening to a crappy 128 bitrate mp3 through headphones doesn't compare to the clear sound you hear on a stereo from the original CD.

**Pooeypants** · Dec 12, 2003, 05:12 pm

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Waychel,)
I'm sorry, but I see no purpose in continuing to repeat myself here for verbatim. I can see we're just going to be here for yet another 5 pages or more. I'm going to give you the last word on this. You can call it "stealing" or whatever you wish. But the bottom line is that in the US, downloading and listening to music is not illegal, nor does any misuse of un-licensed material constitute as theft in court.

Also, to answer your question: My whole interest in foreign music stemmed from downloading it. I used to have every B'z album in mp3 form on my computer. Today I own every album, every "best of" CD, every concert tour DVD... So yes, many people do buy music after they listen to it. Why? Because listening to a crappy 128 bitrate mp3 through headphones doesn't compare to the clear sound you hear on a stereo from the original CD.<hr size="1" /></blockquote>
Just nitpicking here but 128 bit music is too low a sampling rate...

Anyway, have you thought of a new word for this activity?

RebelWithanAK · Dec 12, 2003, 06:07 pm

Waychel, filesharing is illegal. It is against the law.

However, this doesn't make it wrong, nor is it unprecedented.

That is my point.

Laws don't legislate morality, and the companies in question are not exactly bastions of ethics. The point is, they're spouting statistics that fly in the face of economic reality. New York City lost more than a quarter of a million jobs in the last three years. No fucking wonder CD sales are down. We don't need Sherlock Holmes to find out why electronic theft is up.

Your heart's in the right place, but your argument is flawed. Just because people do it doesn't make it legal.

Aeolus · Dec 12, 2003, 06:20 pm

Kazaa is just another medium for people to share music. People used to do it before but now we have a much more efficient medium to "share" music with. Ok, the record companies are losing a profit but it's not "stealing." Stop using semantics to bolster your argument.

If I wanted to share music, I'd go to friend and share it, anyway -- thus, cutting down CD sales. You're forgetting the new medium (WWW: World Wide Web) is just a quicker and efficient way of doing this. It's just hard to regulate at which this medium is gathering steam.

Sodfather · Dec 12, 2003, 07:25 pm

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Aeolus,)
Kazaa is just another medium for people to share music.<hr size="1" /></blockquote>
This question may take us off on an undesired tangent, but since we've entered into legal arguments, I'll ask it anyway. Why has the RIAA not been able to successfully shut down Kazaa (Sharman Networks, I believe) as they had shut down Napster? Was not Napster also a P2P app? I think I recall reading that the problem was Kazaa's international locations which were forbidding the RIAA to pursue legal action against them.

But, still, if file sharing is unconstitutional and a crime, forbidding the RIAA to pursue Kazaa is like saying if someone is hacking into the RIAA's sales records or something from the UK, the RIAA cannot pursue legal action against them.

RebelWithanAK · Dec 12, 2003, 07:49 pm

Filesharing is akin to dubbing rented movies on that brand new piece of 80's hardware called the video cassette player. Except multiplied a hundred-thousand fold. It's still illegal. Just because it's on a different medium and harder to trace doesn't make it less so.

Now, the reason KaZaA hasn't been successfully prosecuted against is partly because it's not an American product, but also because it doesn't have a central bank of servers. KaZaA is a p2p network. Napster, Audiogalaxy and the like were -to invent a term- p2S2p networks. And the owners of those servers could very well be held accountable. Napster's creater had an office that could be raided. And it was.

However, this doesn't mean the RIAA and Sony aren't trying, and if there's one thing they have that us filesharers don't, it's a very, very large amount of spendable money they can waste on fruitless court cases to keep us down. Often times, the one who wins is the one who can afford his lawyer the longest. And nobody wants to win a Phyrric victory in the courts.

The Devil · Dec 12, 2003, 11:03 pm

It's not illegal. It's also not illegal to dub a video, unless you were to distribute it. I think it's time people around here actually research laws.

Sodfather · Dec 13, 2003, 12:01 am

Okay, nice explanation, Rebel. I do have one off-topic question though.
<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (RebelWithanAK,)
And nobody wants to win a Phyrric victory in the courts.<hr size="1" /></blockquote>
What does Pyrrhic mean? I noticed that it strikingly resembles the name of the Greek warrior Pyrrhus, the son of Achilles, whom I have just encountered in my translation of the Aeneid. I'm right in the middle of the part where he kils Priam's son and then Priam kills himself (My professor hasn't corrected our translation yet, so I'm not sure whether Priam stabbed himself or Pyrrus--it's unclear as there's no stated object of the "stab" verb.)--no further than that. I'm wondering what Pyrrhus would have to do with, as I've just read on Encarta, "a victory won at such great cost to the victor that it is tantamount to a defeat."

Thanks to anyone who feeds my pointless curiosity.

Waychel · Dec 13, 2003, 12:23 am

Rebel, I suggest you re-read my posts. No where in this debate have I ever stated that file-sharing was legal. The entire basis of my argument was that downloading and coming into the possession of un-licensed material was legal, but that distributing it was not (being the real crime).

You're attacking my argument with retorts to stances that I never took in it at all. I have to wonder if you've read a single word that I have posted in this entire debate. The only fallacy here are your paradoxical responses.

Also, if simply downloading un-licensed material and/or being in the possession of it are not legal, then why can't anyone here provide a single successful lawsuit on the part of either the RIAA or Microsoft proving otherwise? If you're going to argue against the facts, then present some of your own, please.

RebelWithanAK · Dec 13, 2003, 01:16 am

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Waychel)
The common misconception here is that mp3s are illegal. They aren't legal copies, but they're not illegal contraband either.<hr size="1" /></blockquote>

Actually, as copyrighted materials under the ownership of whatever company the artist signed a contract with in order to produce and distribute them, sharing them is still theft. Now, yes, people who distribute are found more in trouble with the law than just those who simply download, but the bootlegger and his clients are both guilty in the eyes of the court.

Sodfather: That's the guy. He goes on to fight the Romans at Heraclea and Asculum, and while he wins, he wins at the cost of most of his men.

Speaking of word genealogy, my favorite two are both Roman:

'Decimate' - Marcus Licinius Crassus' main man Mummius' army failed in some battle on account of cowardice, and out of 500 men with such a charge, one out of every ten would be whipped to death by the other nine in order to teach them how to dull their fear (and their senses). deci(ten)-mate(kill). Hell, mate has its own genealogy stretching back to the word 'Shah.'

'Proletarian' - Even lower than Plebians, Proles are only good to the state in producing warm bodies for manual labor. Hence, Prolific, Propogate. Pro(forth)-alere(grow).

Waychel · Dec 13, 2003, 01:42 am

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by
Actually, as copyrighted materials under the ownership of whatever company the artist signed a contract with in order to produce and distribute them, sharing them is still theft. Now, yes, people who distribute are found more in trouble with the law than just those who simply download, but the bootlegger and his clients are both guilty in the eyes of the court.<hr size="1" /></blockquote>

..................

"Rebel, I suggest you re-read my posts. No where in this debate have I ever stated that file-sharing was legal. The entire basis of my argument was that downloading and coming into the possession of un-licensed material was legal, but that distributing it was not (being the real crime)."

If you're going to argue against something I have said, then PLEASE read it first.

You're replying to me in regards to arguments/statements that I NEVER MADE. You're also replying to me saying file distribution is illegal, when I have never said otherwise and actually stated this very same fact many times throughout this debate. You're either not reading my posts, or what I'm saying is somehow going completely over your head.

The Devil · Dec 13, 2003, 02:17 am

Essen sie sheisse und sterben! Enough of this BS. It's only illegal if you're distributing, and that only applies to the US.

darwinist · Dec 13, 2003, 06:11 am

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by
Actually, as copyrighted materials under the ownership of whatever company the artist signed a contract with in order to produce and distribute them, sharing them is still theft. Now, yes, people who distribute are found more in trouble with the law than just those who simply download, but the bootlegger and his clients are both guilty in the eyes of the court.
<hr size="1" /></blockquote>

Thank you Rebel. That is what i have been looking for on the web. For the last few days.

Theft is, wait for it............ " Stealing "

Yes...!!!

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by
Kazaa is just another medium for people to share music. People used to do it before but now we have a much more efficient medium to "share" music with. Ok, the record companies are losing a profit but it's not "stealing." Stop using semantics to bolster your argument. <hr size="1" /></blockquote>

I am not trying to bolster any argument. Without semantics, or meaning in/of language.

You might as well say:- tree herring cut red largest down the forest in with.

Or gobble de gook...

:)

white rice · Dec 14, 2003, 07:02 pm

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (darwinist,)
<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by
Actually, as copyrighted materials under the ownership of whatever company the artist signed a contract with in order to produce and distribute them, sharing them is still theft. Now, yes, people who distribute are found more in trouble with the law than just those who simply download, but the bootlegger and his clients are both guilty in the eyes of the court.
<hr size="1" /></blockquote>

Thank you Rebel. That is what i have been looking for on the web. For the last few days.

Theft is, wait for it............ " Stealing "

Yes...!!!

<hr size="1" /></blockquote>

I sifted through bloody copyright acts (Copyright Act, DMCA, etc...) for this and none have mentioned possession to be illegal (with some exceptions Waychel mentionede). There are no provisions or penalties mentioning posession. Civil suits are possible in the case of software and breaking the EULA, but proving intent of possession gives the defendant a very large advantage.

Waychel is right. Sharing is illegal. Owning for private use (by not sharing or distributing) is not illegal in the United States. If you're an employee who privately uses mp3 on the office computer, then you're an end-user pirate. But at home, you're safe from the FBI. "Theft" and "stealing" doesn't always mean illegality. What do you call former Enron excecutives?
Free and rich.

What I don't get is why you can be prosecuted for buying bootleg videos but not for CDs or digitally copied movies. Or is it possible, but harder to prove on the web?

Waychel · Dec 15, 2003, 03:56 am

Nyah! =PpP

Wiredk · Dec 22, 2003, 11:21 pm

Im a Hypocrite. I use warez, but as a means to test a game. Any game that was worth it I buy. these are mainly the multiplayer ones. the single player games are too short lived

It doesnt make it right though. And I pirate less and Less now adays. I hardly save anything that I download.

However, on a side note: the jacked up prices on music cds had nothing to do with pirating. They're just using it as a scape goat.
While Video games are expensive(possibly by pirating), I believe the good ones are well worth 50 bucks.

*edited*
on a side note I should of waited until I wasnt sick before posting this

oh well.

Dec 23, 2003, 01:07 am

haha...I'm a hypocrite when it comes to this stuff too. I think most people are. White rice, you pose a really good question about bootlegging vs. cd's....did you find an answer?-I'm curious.

Dec 23, 2003, 07:41 pm

I'm mixed.

I think in order for someone who is broke that just wants to work on their skills, go for it.

If you're going to seel anything, however, I think you should buy the product.

It doesnt sound so bad when your talking about something lke VB.NET or Adobe PS, becuase they are large companies.

But when you're taking programs from smaller companies, and they arent making money... people start losing jobs. For real. I figure, most of these programs go for $30 or so, so it's not too big of a deal to support the company.

View Poll Results: Is warez a positive or negative thing?
Positive	12	42.86%
Negative	3	10.71%
It's stealing, you idiot!	5	17.86%
I'm Mixed.	8	28.57%
Voters: 28. You may not vote

Dec 12, 2003, 03:11 pm	#61 (permalink) (top)
Waychel Supercalifragilistic Posts: 431	</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by You said, i had no statistics. I just proved, that you could get some.<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> Let me repeat what I originally said: "The difference here is that estimated losses can be based upon statistics. When the RIAA sued a 12-year-old girl from NYC over distributing mp3s on KaZaA, their speculation was backed by numbers: those the girl distributed to, and the chances of those being prospective buyers. Here however, you are speaking of one individual. There is no knowing whether that one individual would have bought that CD or not. There is no room for statistic analysis." To clarify there, the RIAA could show that this girl sent her mp3s to several thousand people. Of those several thousand people, they argued, at least one thousand would have been buyers. However, this comparison cannot be applied to a single person as you say. The statistics would be entirely un-related to that individual because they would be based on the actions of others, and not the individual. You cannot apply the statistics of the masses and apply them to a specific individual to second-guess their actions. Maybe in Nazi Germany, you could. Such a ridiculous argument of mind-reading proportions would never hold up in court and is simply ridiculous. Likewise, there would be no point, as I previously pointed out: "Take a look at the RIAA's recent legal actions taken against KaZaA users: all are on the basis of "estimated losses incurred by illegal distribution". The legal grounds are SOLELY based upon potential losses, because that is where the actual crime is. However, you cannot hold somebody who makes up .1% of those potential losses accountable for $30,000 in damages (or whatever amount the RIAA claims) when they've only incurred maybe 5 cents of that themselves. This is why the only individuals who are and ever can be held responsible for those losses are those that distribute this material to the thousands of people that make up the statistics." Your argument is inconsistent, if not totally illogical - even if it is just a hypothetical situation. Not to mention it is in total contradiction of the ethics of the judicial system of this country. </span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by I am not changing my argument. You said that record label, would not suffer any costs. I just posted an example of where they would.<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> I never claimed that the RIAA would not suffer any losses. What I claimed and pointed out was: "The fault would not be upon these individuals who downloaded that album, but the individuals who distributed the album to them originally. I explained this in my previous posts." </span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by I do not think, i am having a problem. I think your having a problem with semantics. Cheat:- deceive, trick, swindle, DEFRAUD, dupe, hoodwink, doble-cross. To DEFRAUD is to rip-off. To rip-off is to steal. Oh look, word play. Lets play with words, till it is not 'stealing' anymore. Let's make it morally right ?!#<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> None of these words are "steal". There is a difference between cheat, defruad, rip-off, and steal. This isn't word play, its how the legal system works: If you charge someone with a crime, you have to be specific as to what crime it is. As I have stated numerous times, the issue of morals here is a personal one. However, legally, this is not "stealing" and you only need to look at every court case regarding un-licensed digital media to confirm this. No one has ever been charged on the grounds of stealing or theft. If you have such a problem with how our legal system works in its protection of the people from frivolous and vague charges of theft, then I suggest you write to your congressman. Arguing with me - telling me that this "isn't true" when it is undeniably so - isn't going to change anything. Float like a butterfly, sting like a bee.

Dec 12, 2003, 03:52 pm	#62 (permalink) (top)
darwinist Igneous Magma Location: Netherlands Posts: 200	</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by There is no knowing whether that one individual would have bought that CD or not. There is no room for statistic analysis."<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> Ok lets break this down. Question. If you own the a free ablum, would you go to the shops to buy one? Would any individual? Anwser. Probably not. What percentage as a statistic would buy the ablum in question? </span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by However, this comparison cannot be applied to a single person as you say. The statistics would be entirely un-related to that individual because they would be based on the actions of others, and not the individual. You cannot apply the statistics of the masses and apply them to a specific individual to second-guess their actions. Maybe in Nazi Germany, you could.<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> I never said that it should be applied. I was just trying to point out, that it is in fact 'stealing'. And how people where justifing 'stealing' by calling it something else and because it is easy to do. </span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by I never claimed that the RIAA would not suffer any losses. What I claimed and pointed out was: "The fault would not be upon these individuals who downloaded that album, but the individuals who distributed the album to them originally. I explained this in my previous posts."<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> Ok. But the individual is still responsible. Without demand, they is no market. In the UK, a person can steal something. Lets say 100 albums, sell them at a local market. If you buy those albums, you can be proscuted for 'receiving' 'stolen' goods. </span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by None of these words are "steal". There is a difference between cheat, defruad, rip-off, and steal. This isn't word play, its how the legal system works: If you charge someone with a crime, you have to be specific as to what crime it is. As I have stated numerous times, the issue of morals here is a personal one. However, legally, this is not "stealing" and you only need to look at every court case regarding un-licensed digital media to confirm this. No one has ever been charged on the grounds of stealing or theft. If you have such a problem with how our legal system works in its protection of the people from frivolous and vague charges of theft, then I suggest you write to your congressman. Arguing with me - telling me that this "isn't true" when it is undeniably so - isn't going to change anything.<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> Which book are you reading from??? To defruad the system of cash/goods or services is 'stealing'. To rip something off. Is 'stealing'. Why would i want to write to a congressman, i live in the Netherlands.... As it says in my 'profile'. What goes 'up', must come 'down', unless it goes around and round.

Dec 12, 2003, 04:03 pm	#63 (permalink) (top)
Waychel Supercalifragilistic Posts: 431	I'm sorry, but I see no purpose in continuing to repeat myself here for verbatim. I can see we're just going to be here for yet another 5 pages or more. I'm going to give you the last word on this. You can call it "stealing" or whatever you wish. But the bottom line is that in the US, downloading and listening to music is not illegal, nor does any misuse of un-licensed material constitute as theft in court. Also, to answer your question: My whole interest in foreign music stemmed from downloading it. I used to have every B'z album in mp3 form on my computer. Today I own every album, every "best of" CD, every concert tour DVD... So yes, many people do buy music after they listen to it. Why? Because listening to a crappy 128 bitrate mp3 through headphones doesn't compare to the clear sound you hear on a stereo from the original CD. Float like a butterfly, sting like a bee.

Dec 12, 2003, 05:12 pm	#64 (permalink) (top)
Pooeypants Neo Moderator Location: England Posts: 5,549	</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Waychel,) I'm sorry, but I see no purpose in continuing to repeat myself here for verbatim. I can see we're just going to be here for yet another 5 pages or more. I'm going to give you the last word on this. You can call it "stealing" or whatever you wish. But the bottom line is that in the US, downloading and listening to music is not illegal, nor does any misuse of un-licensed material constitute as theft in court. Also, to answer your question: My whole interest in foreign music stemmed from downloading it. I used to have every B'z album in mp3 form on my computer. Today I own every album, every "best of" CD, every concert tour DVD... So yes, many people do buy music after they listen to it. Why? Because listening to a crappy 128 bitrate mp3 through headphones doesn't compare to the clear sound you hear on a stereo from the original CD.<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> Just nitpicking here but 128 bit music is too low a sampling rate... Anyway, have you thought of a new word for this activity? War is Peace Freedom is Slavery Ignorance is strength Harness the power of Ingsoc, then you can capture someone killed the year before

Dec 12, 2003, 06:07 pm	#65 (permalink) (top)
RebelWithanAK Igneous Magma Location: New York City Posts: 739	Waychel, filesharing is illegal. It is against the law. However, this doesn't make it wrong, nor is it unprecedented. That is my point. Laws don't legislate morality, and the companies in question are not exactly bastions of ethics. The point is, they're spouting statistics that fly in the face of economic reality. New York City lost more than a quarter of a million jobs in the last three years. No fucking wonder CD sales are down. We don't need Sherlock Holmes to find out why electronic theft is up. Your heart's in the right place, but your argument is flawed. Just because people do it doesn't make it legal. . . . whenever any government becomes destructive to these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute a new government, laying its foundations on such principles and organizing its powers in such forms as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness.

Dec 12, 2003, 06:20 pm	#66 (permalink) (top)
Aeolus Sedimentary Rock Posts: 8	Kazaa is just another medium for people to share music. People used to do it before but now we have a much more efficient medium to "share" music with. Ok, the record companies are losing a profit but it's not "stealing." Stop using semantics to bolster your argument. If I wanted to share music, I'd go to friend and share it, anyway -- thus, cutting down CD sales. You're forgetting the new medium (WWW: World Wide Web) is just a quicker and efficient way of doing this. It's just hard to regulate at which this medium is gathering steam.

Dec 12, 2003, 07:25 pm	#67 (permalink) (top)
Sodfather Igneous Magma Posts: 327	</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Aeolus,) Kazaa is just another medium for people to share music.<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> This question may take us off on an undesired tangent, but since we've entered into legal arguments, I'll ask it anyway. Why has the RIAA not been able to successfully shut down Kazaa (Sharman Networks, I believe) as they had shut down Napster? Was not Napster also a P2P app? I think I recall reading that the problem was Kazaa's international locations which were forbidding the RIAA to pursue legal action against them. But, still, if file sharing is unconstitutional and a crime, forbidding the RIAA to pursue Kazaa is like saying if someone is hacking into the RIAA's sales records or something from the UK, the RIAA cannot pursue legal action against them.

Dec 12, 2003, 07:49 pm	#68 (permalink) (top)
RebelWithanAK Igneous Magma Location: New York City Posts: 739	Filesharing is akin to dubbing rented movies on that brand new piece of 80's hardware called the video cassette player. Except multiplied a hundred-thousand fold. It's still illegal. Just because it's on a different medium and harder to trace doesn't make it less so. Now, the reason KaZaA hasn't been successfully prosecuted against is partly because it's not an American product, but also because it doesn't have a central bank of servers. KaZaA is a p2p network. Napster, Audiogalaxy and the like were -to invent a term- p2S2p networks. And the owners of those servers could very well be held accountable. Napster's creater had an office that could be raided. And it was. However, this doesn't mean the RIAA and Sony aren't trying, and if there's one thing they have that us filesharers don't, it's a very, very large amount of spendable money they can waste on fruitless court cases to keep us down. Often times, the one who wins is the one who can afford his lawyer the longest. And nobody wants to win a Phyrric victory in the courts. . . . whenever any government becomes destructive to these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute a new government, laying its foundations on such principles and organizing its powers in such forms as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness.

Dec 12, 2003, 11:03 pm	#69 (permalink) (top)
The Devil Molten Ash Location: Canada Posts: 55	It's not illegal. It's also not illegal to dub a video, unless you were to distribute it. I think it's time people around here actually research laws.

Dec 13, 2003, 12:01 am	#70 (permalink) (top)
Sodfather Igneous Magma Posts: 327	Okay, nice explanation, Rebel. I do have one off-topic question though. </span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (RebelWithanAK,) And nobody wants to win a Phyrric victory in the courts.<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> What does Pyrrhic mean? I noticed that it strikingly resembles the name of the Greek warrior Pyrrhus, the son of Achilles, whom I have just encountered in my translation of the Aeneid. I'm right in the middle of the part where he kils Priam's son and then Priam kills himself (My professor hasn't corrected our translation yet, so I'm not sure whether Priam stabbed himself or Pyrrus--it's unclear as there's no stated object of the "stab" verb.)--no further than that. I'm wondering what Pyrrhus would have to do with, as I've just read on Encarta, "a victory won at such great cost to the victor that it is tantamount to a defeat." Thanks to anyone who feeds my pointless curiosity.

Dec 13, 2003, 12:23 am	#71 (permalink) (top)
Waychel Supercalifragilistic Posts: 431	Rebel, I suggest you re-read my posts. No where in this debate have I ever stated that file-sharing was legal. The entire basis of my argument was that downloading and coming into the possession of un-licensed material was legal, but that distributing it was not (being the real crime). You're attacking my argument with retorts to stances that I never took in it at all. I have to wonder if you've read a single word that I have posted in this entire debate. The only fallacy here are your paradoxical responses. Also, if simply downloading un-licensed material and/or being in the possession of it are not legal, then why can't anyone here provide a single successful lawsuit on the part of either the RIAA or Microsoft proving otherwise? If you're going to argue against the facts, then present some of your own, please. Float like a butterfly, sting like a bee.

Dec 13, 2003, 01:16 am	#72 (permalink) (top)
RebelWithanAK Igneous Magma Location: New York City Posts: 739	</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Waychel) The common misconception here is that mp3s are illegal. They aren't legal copies, but they're not illegal contraband either.<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> Actually, as copyrighted materials under the ownership of whatever company the artist signed a contract with in order to produce and distribute them, sharing them is still theft. Now, yes, people who distribute are found more in trouble with the law than just those who simply download, but the bootlegger and his clients are both guilty in the eyes of the court. Sodfather: That's the guy. He goes on to fight the Romans at Heraclea and Asculum, and while he wins, he wins at the cost of most of his men. Speaking of word genealogy, my favorite two are both Roman: 'Decimate' - Marcus Licinius Crassus' main man Mummius' army failed in some battle on account of cowardice, and out of 500 men with such a charge, one out of every ten would be whipped to death by the other nine in order to teach them how to dull their fear (and their senses). deci(ten)-mate(kill). Hell, mate has its own genealogy stretching back to the word 'Shah.' 'Proletarian' - Even lower than Plebians, Proles are only good to the state in producing warm bodies for manual labor. Hence, Prolific, Propogate. Pro(forth)-alere(grow). . . . whenever any government becomes destructive to these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute a new government, laying its foundations on such principles and organizing its powers in such forms as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness.

Dec 13, 2003, 01:42 am	#73 (permalink) (top)
Waychel Supercalifragilistic Posts: 431	</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by Actually, as copyrighted materials under the ownership of whatever company the artist signed a contract with in order to produce and distribute them, sharing them is still theft. Now, yes, people who distribute are found more in trouble with the law than just those who simply download, but the bootlegger and his clients are both guilty in the eyes of the court.<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> .................. "Rebel, I suggest you re-read my posts. No where in this debate have I ever stated that file-sharing was legal. The entire basis of my argument was that downloading and coming into the possession of un-licensed material was legal, but that distributing it was not (being the real crime)." If you're going to argue against something I have said, then PLEASE read it first. You're replying to me in regards to arguments/statements that I NEVER MADE. You're also replying to me saying file distribution is illegal, when I have never said otherwise and actually stated this very same fact many times throughout this debate. You're either not reading my posts, or what I'm saying is somehow going completely over your head. Float like a butterfly, sting like a bee.

Dec 13, 2003, 02:17 am	#74 (permalink) (top)
The Devil Molten Ash Location: Canada Posts: 55	Essen sie sheisse und sterben! Enough of this BS. It's only illegal if you're distributing, and that only applies to the US.

Dec 13, 2003, 06:11 am	#75 (permalink) (top)
darwinist Igneous Magma Location: Netherlands Posts: 200	</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by Actually, as copyrighted materials under the ownership of whatever company the artist signed a contract with in order to produce and distribute them, sharing them is still theft. Now, yes, people who distribute are found more in trouble with the law than just those who simply download, but the bootlegger and his clients are both guilty in the eyes of the court. <hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> Thank you Rebel. That is what i have been looking for on the web. For the last few days. Theft is, wait for it............ " Stealing " Yes...!!! </span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by Kazaa is just another medium for people to share music. People used to do it before but now we have a much more efficient medium to "share" music with. Ok, the record companies are losing a profit but it's not "stealing." Stop using semantics to bolster your argument. <hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> I am not trying to bolster any argument. Without semantics, or meaning in/of language. You might as well say:- tree herring cut red largest down the forest in with. Or gobble de gook... :) What goes 'up', must come 'down', unless it goes around and round.

Dec 14, 2003, 07:02 pm	#76 (permalink) (top)
white rice Igneous Magma Posts: 372	</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (darwinist,) </span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by Actually, as copyrighted materials under the ownership of whatever company the artist signed a contract with in order to produce and distribute them, sharing them is still theft. Now, yes, people who distribute are found more in trouble with the law than just those who simply download, but the bootlegger and his clients are both guilty in the eyes of the court. <hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> Thank you Rebel. That is what i have been looking for on the web. For the last few days. Theft is, wait for it............ " Stealing " Yes...!!! <hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> I sifted through bloody copyright acts (Copyright Act, DMCA, etc...) for this and none have mentioned possession to be illegal (with some exceptions Waychel mentionede). There are no provisions or penalties mentioning posession. Civil suits are possible in the case of software and breaking the EULA, but proving intent of possession gives the defendant a very large advantage. Waychel is right. Sharing is illegal. Owning for private use (by not sharing or distributing) is not illegal in the United States. If you're an employee who privately uses mp3 on the office computer, then you're an end-user pirate. But at home, you're safe from the FBI. "Theft" and "stealing" doesn't always mean illegality. What do you call former Enron excecutives? Free and rich. What I don't get is why you can be prosecuted for buying bootleg videos but not for CDs or digitally copied movies. Or is it possible, but harder to prove on the web? Never underestimate the power of stupid people in large groups

Dec 15, 2003, 03:56 am	#77 (permalink) (top)
Waychel Supercalifragilistic Posts: 431	Nyah! =PpP Float like a butterfly, sting like a bee.

Dec 22, 2003, 11:21 pm	#78 (permalink) (top)
Wiredk Sedimentary Rock Posts: 1	Im a Hypocrite. I use warez, but as a means to test a game. Any game that was worth it I buy. these are mainly the multiplayer ones. the single player games are too short lived It doesnt make it right though. And I pirate less and Less now adays. I hardly save anything that I download. However, on a side note: the jacked up prices on music cds had nothing to do with pirating. They're just using it as a scape goat. While Video games are expensive(possibly by pirating), I believe the good ones are well worth 50 bucks. edited on a side note I should of waited until I wasnt sick before posting this oh well.

Dec 23, 2003, 01:07 am	#79 (permalink) (top)
dotComa Guest Posts: n/a	haha...I'm a hypocrite when it comes to this stuff too. I think most people are. White rice, you pose a really good question about bootlegging vs. cd's....did you find an answer?-I'm curious.

Dec 23, 2003, 07:41 pm	#80 (permalink) (top)
Gregory Guest Posts: n/a	I'm mixed. I think in order for someone who is broke that just wants to work on their skills, go for it. If you're going to seel anything, however, I think you should buy the product. It doesnt sound so bad when your talking about something lke VB.NET or Adobe PS, becuase they are large companies. But when you're taking programs from smaller companies, and they arent making money... people start losing jobs. For real. I figure, most of these programs go for $30 or so, so it's not too big of a deal to support the company.