Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Miscellaneous [BG]' started by Hategear, Aug 24, 2003.
Kinda related :
Just as RIAA is going after file sharing in the US full force, they seem oblivious to the fact it is legal in Canada.
As the RIAA wages its increasingly desperate campaign of litigation in terrorum to try to take down the largest American file sharers on the various P2P networks, it seems to be utterly unaware of the radically different status of private copying in Canada.
This is a fatal oversight, because P2P networks are international. While the Digital Millennium Copyright Act may make it illegal to share copyright material in America, the Canadian Copyright Act expressly allows exactly the sort of copying which is at the base of the P2P revolution.
In fact, you could not have designed a law which more perfectly captures the peer to peer process. "Private copying" is a term of art in the Act
RIAA spokesperson Amanda Collins seemed unaware of the situation in Canada. "Our goal is deterrence. We are focused on uploaders in the US. Filing lawsuits against individuals making files available in the US."
Which will be a colossal waste of time because in Canada it is expressly legal to share music. If the RIAA were to somehow succeed in shutting down every "supernode" in America all this would do is transfer the traffic to the millions of file sharers in Canada. And, as 50% of Canadians on the net have broadband (as compared to 20% of Americans) Canadian file sharers are likely to be able to meet the demand.
SMASH, you have made me happy again. I mean, what sense is it to do what they are doing, which is going to be here, no matter what?
Wait, I know.
Also, I think you officaly highjacked Hategears thread.
I'll be more than happy to give the RIAA my home address, so they can come right to my house and get me. They don't scare me with their bulls**t threats. IMO, they're fighting a losing battle, as file sharing is the next step forward. It's like trying to stop evolution.
Bingo, if it's illegal for the sun to set, it's going to set, regardless of corp BS.
yea! I hate that b\s that they claim to be doing. The whole file sharing thing can't be stopped, if they shut down Kazaa, all we gotta do is share them in either e-mails or simply direct connecting on AIM.
the whole downloading "free" music can get outta hand but it hasn't stopped me from buying CDs, in fact, now that I know some of the stuff on the CD's other than the radio singles, and for me to be able to know what I'm buying makes me want to buy the CD even more.
They let us check a car before we buy it if we really wanna, they let us play a bass at a music store to check it out before buying it. So why not be able to check a CD out like that before buying it?
Besides, we can record tracks on a CD into our computer and share 'em. We record movies onto blank cassettes and sometimes share them w\ people......but its when we make free money off of it and the people making it get jack that people get all pissed.
The RIAA is in over its head, the most they can do is arrest some people here and there but they can't completely stop it. I understand them trying to stop the people getting child pornography off Kazaa as well as that illegal underground porn...but why music?
It's stuff like this that makes me glad to be a Canadian.
and on that note....dammit, I'm SO moving to canada.
Because it is theft.
Theft is when you deprive someone else of something by stealing it. It's copyright infringement, which is of course illegal as defined by both long-standing copyright laws and the recent Digital Millenium Copyright Act. But theft? no, it is not theft.
Yes, you can make the argument that P2P file sharing deprives the artists of something, namely income. But the major labels have been doing a good job of that all by themselves, and did so for a long time before Napster and Kazaa came along.
But what this all comes down to is that the Internet is forcing the old business model to change, and the RIAA refuses to embrace this inevitable change. The majors are fast becoming an irrelevent middle-man. They are kicking and screaming, and will go kicking and screaming to their ruin. If they were smart, they would find a way to make money off of P2P. But they are greedy, want things their way, and are not willing to compromise.
Of course it is. You didn't pay for it, you don't own it, you took it. It's theft. You are just saying it isn't so you can sleep at night
You are probably arguing it isn't theft becuse the person who DID buy the CD in the first place is not deprived of it.
If technology now allows us to steal things by copying, it means we need to adjust our definition of theft, that's all.
As for the original thread, how come only the guys from the little niche labels think downloading is cool? Especially a label that specializes in vinyl reissues...I've been trying to download vinyl for years, but can't get it to work
You're mistaken. Nothing is taken. "Taking" something would involve depriving someone else of the use of it. Since we are talking about the exchange via the Internet of inferior fascimiles of CD tracks here (MP3s) and not the actual taking of someone else's property in a way that takes it from them and prohibits their use of it, it is NOT theft. Your argument holds no water. And I sleep just fine, just like I did before P2P
It's no use arguing though, no one ever had their mind changed by someone they've never met over an internet message board. The RIAA will adapt or die.
How about this scenario: You buy a CD and then make a "backup" copy of it. Someone then steals your original CD. They aren't depriving you of listening to the music contained on that CD becasue you have your "backup", right? But isn't it theft all the same?
It's theft depending on where u live and the laws in your country. For it to be theft it first has to be illegal right?? Well in Canada it is legal to download copyrighted material providing you don't distribute it. So those who are quick to say you are stealing may be wrong. Yes i took it, I didn't pay for it but I am entitled to do so under the law.
That is a really grey law, and a cop out IMHO.
For somebody to download it, somebody else had to distribute it, i.e. make it available on a p2p network.
So, that means it is illegal to make it free for the taking, but if somebody does, then it is legal for you to take it. So somebody had to break the law, in order for you to do a legal thing.
Kinda strange. And I know the USA has laws that are just as strange.
Exactly right! The interesting thing is that Sony (owners of Sony music) are one of the largest manufacturers and distributors of mp3 players, which are primarily made to play downloaded material. And the majority of that is shared files!
So one of the "majors" has its share of both markets right now!
Now back in the olden days, did anyone on TB ever loan a friend an LP to listen to, or a book to read? That is merely a simpler method of sharing, and was not considered illegal, even though it could plainly lead to loss of artists income and constituted use of copyrighted material. I even remember music circles and book circles effectively designed to "distribute" this material. Even used bookstores and music stores have this issue today. File sharing is just a more pervasive and scary thing for the RIAA.
The answer is that the RIAA better find a way to capitalize on downloaded material and participate in that market if it wants to survive, and if it wants to "protect" the artists it purports to represent.
Here is a question:
Would those of you who download, still do it if you had to pay for it?