Senate bill bans P2P networks (News.com)
Foes of the IICA, including civil liberties groups and file-swapping network operators, are alarmed that the measure enjoys strong support from prominent politicians of both major parties. Its supporters include Patrick Leahy, D-Vt.; Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, R-Tenn.; Minority Leader Tom Daschle, D-S.D.; Lindsey Graham, R-S.C.; and Barbara Boxer, D-Calif."
Posted Jun 24, 2004 14:06 UTC (Thu)
by Cinabrium (guest, #19569)
[Link]
Posted Jun 24, 2004 15:09 UTC (Thu)
by darkcape (guest, #9022)
[Link] (2 responses)
Posted Jun 24, 2004 15:44 UTC (Thu)
by freemars (subscriber, #4235)
[Link] (1 responses)
Oh The Horror. Does this mean the authors of Sendmail and Postfix are next in line for jail terms?
Posted Jun 24, 2004 15:58 UTC (Thu)
by verzonnen (guest, #9406)
[Link]
Anyway in jail the music is free ;)
Posted Jun 24, 2004 15:48 UTC (Thu)
by freemars (subscriber, #4235)
[Link] (1 responses)
Hey, what gives? You take my money AND you put up ads?
Posted Jul 1, 2004 6:36 UTC (Thu)
by Felix.Braun (guest, #3032)
[Link]
Posted Jun 24, 2004 16:42 UTC (Thu)
by ccchips (subscriber, #3222)
[Link] (19 responses)
Time and time again, I have told friends and neighbors and colleagues not to steal copyrighted material (for instance, by taking DivX copies of such things as "The Two Towers", "Fellowship of the Ring", and so on, from people who post those items to the Internet. My fellow Americans refused to listen to me. I am a very *strong* proponent of freely-distributable music, video, speech, and whatnot; in fact, I am a very big fan of the DemoScene, SoundClick, the old MP3.COM, and all the rest of those sites. I also believe no one should be allowed to prevent me from, say, putting my own CD's into MP3 files so I can carry 1 CD on the bus instead of 20. BUT I WILL NOT HAVE SYMPATHY FOR PEOPLE WHO STEAL MUSIC AND MOVIES OVER THE INTERNET, and if there are companies that are deliberately attracting people to their service for that purpose, I HAVE NO SYMPATHY FOR THEM EITHER. Nor do I have sympathy for people who refuse to listen when I repeatedly tell them that if they don't stop this behavior, the rest of us will suffer. This whole business has really got me angry, and I know exactly who to blame (the big recording operations, and the thieves, and the organizations which encourage theft.) In short, people who copy, and then distribute, works of art without permission are the ones at fault here. If you are going to be concerned emough about this to take action, talk to *them.*
Posted Jun 24, 2004 16:46 UTC (Thu)
by ccchips (subscriber, #3222)
[Link]
Posted Jun 24, 2004 17:24 UTC (Thu)
by Ross (guest, #4065)
[Link] (16 responses)
Frankly this is the worst proposed copyright change since Holling's proposal
Posted Jun 24, 2004 21:37 UTC (Thu)
by ccchips (subscriber, #3222)
[Link] (15 responses)
You'd thind there was a lesson in there somewhere.... ....like, say, if you want freedom, be responsible, and if you want to lose it, be irresponsible.
Posted Jun 25, 2004 4:15 UTC (Fri)
by Nick (guest, #15060)
[Link] (1 responses)
Everyone please form an orderly queue outside your local penitentiary.
Posted Jun 25, 2004 17:52 UTC (Fri)
by ccchips (subscriber, #3222)
[Link]
Oh, dear, people are still committing murder after Moses told them not to. We can't have that, because then we'll be dead. So either lock them up or deter them completely by killing them, so they won't kill us. Give me a break. There are 2 sides to this story, and you know it. I'm sorry for you if you're unwilling to see it that way. I'll just go away and wait until I no longer have the right to copy anything, because the rest of you who want that right don't see that there are 2 groups of people who are insuring that you don't have it. I give up.
Posted Jun 25, 2004 4:52 UTC (Fri)
by nicku (subscriber, #777)
[Link]
I think that the record industry is so blind to the needs of the customer; they could be making money and friends instead of enemies.
No I do not steal music from anyone. And I do not give others the files that I have paid for. But these legislators are on the wrong track.
Posted Jun 25, 2004 12:05 UTC (Fri)
by RobSeace (subscriber, #4435)
[Link] (11 responses)
Do you actually think that way?? My god, I pity you, if so... *shudder* You seem to think our freedoms are PRIVILEGES granted to us by our corporate
Posted Jun 25, 2004 17:45 UTC (Fri)
by ccchips (subscriber, #3222)
[Link] (10 responses)
But you also know that's no justification for people distributing music and movies without permission. You must also know that this fight is going to hurt legitimate peer-to-peer users. Hell, if you think I'm siding with the recording industry, then I just give up. Go ahead and fight them whatever way you want. Just stand by and let people copy whatever they feel like. There are other ways out of this mess, and if nobody wants to make the effort to see what they are, fine. I give up.
Posted Jun 25, 2004 18:13 UTC (Fri)
by RobSeace (subscriber, #4435)
[Link] (9 responses)
Well, it's not MY job (or yours) to police what other people do... I'm
Posted Jun 25, 2004 18:50 UTC (Fri)
by ccchips (subscriber, #3222)
[Link] (8 responses)
People view records, CD's, DVD's videotapes, and movies as *products*, like lamps or furniture. I don't want the government involved either, but for that to happen, people have to police themselves. You draw the "joint" analogy, and it works perfectly into what I'm saying. In the 1970's, when people were starting to see that reefer wasn't so bad, the "market" responded by putting pipes, rolling-papers, bongs, and all manner of other drug paraphernalia into stores that sell candy and comic books to children. In other words, the market didn't police itself. I assume you must know what happend because of this: Now, you wouldn't want a cop to see your water pipe, even if it's completely empty of any drugs. Even though you're an adult. I don't agree with these laws, but neither was I in the least bit impressed when I saw an adult sell a bong to a 10-year-old, in a store, as a legitimate transaction. I suspect that if such behavior had not taken place at all, I might still be able to go into a store, as an adult, and buy one for myself. ...in other words, I couldn't fight the drug paraphernalia laws with that kind of inertia against me. This is the same thing all over again, but what's the use if no one else sees it that way?
Posted Jun 25, 2004 19:54 UTC (Fri)
by RobSeace (subscriber, #4435)
[Link] (7 responses)
The actual physical CDs and DVDs and tapes, yes... But, I would disagree
Posted Jun 25, 2004 20:58 UTC (Fri)
by khim (subscriber, #9252)
[Link] (6 responses)
It doesn't FEEL like any sort of real-world crime... And why the hell should it FEEL like real-world crime? It's perfectly natural thing to do after all... While I do not always agree with RMS here he's alsolutely right. In other words, when the public is challenged to show why publishers should not receive some additional power, the most important reason of all -- "We want to copy" -- is disqualified in advance. If you'll think about it he's 100% right. People do want to copy. That's the whole reason any DRM will fail and any protection will be circumvented.
Posted Jun 26, 2004 12:23 UTC (Sat)
by ccchips (subscriber, #3222)
[Link] (5 responses)
That's actually the main point I've been trying to get across all this time: that we'd be far better off to support *them*, so the RIAA will then lose all its power.
Posted Jun 27, 2004 7:59 UTC (Sun)
by piman (guest, #8957)
[Link] (4 responses)
Posted Jun 28, 2004 15:21 UTC (Mon)
by ccchips (subscriber, #3222)
[Link] (3 responses)
BUT, I also have serious doubts that this kind of bill will be stopped, if maqssive numbers of people continue to copy and then distribute materials from companies which the RIAA represent, and which did not give permission to copy. I cannot understand why people who are so well-versed in the world of Free software, as yourselves, don't understand or agree with my point, which is that we, as leaders in the movement toward freedom, should encourage others to move *away* from RIAA-backed and prohibitive entities, and favor entities which are not prohibitive. I sincerely believe that such efforts will help to quell the political movement that appears to want to ban P2P networks and copying. Even Richard Stallman, when talking about copying software, shuns the idea of copying proprietary software for 2 reasons (1) it aggravates the makers of that software into becoming more restrictive, and (2) it spreads proprietary software around, thus encouraging people to use it. He would rather see people copy free software, and distribute it, while at the same time encouraging others to do so. Why wouldn't this same principle apply to music and movies?
Posted Jun 28, 2004 15:50 UTC (Mon)
by RobSeace (subscriber, #4435)
[Link] (2 responses)
I don't think I saw anyone disagree with this point... I think it's probably > I sincerely believe that such efforts will help to quell the political Now, THIS I think many people might disagree with... I think you're just
Posted Jun 28, 2004 17:15 UTC (Mon)
by ccchips (subscriber, #3222)
[Link]
I will apply my energy toward fighting these kinds of laws, and toward encouraging my friends and neighbors to look at alternative sources of entertainment that are more free. Eliminate the negative, IOW.
Posted Jul 2, 2004 4:20 UTC (Fri)
by khim (subscriber, #9252)
[Link]
Great analysis! That really explain difference between RIAA and MPAA positions: new draconian laws are "the last hope" for RIAA while MPAA can exist without them. Why so ? Movies can not be created for cheap. You need a lot of stuff to create good movie. Not $100 millions for sure but not $10'000 either. And you can not return all this without help of some distributors thus movie creators will seek help of MPAA for foreseable future. RIAA on the other hand is obsolete already: $$ needed to produce good music can be raised by concerts and donations (you do not need super-high-end hardware to do succesefull song if you have something in head). If you'll remove (and I mean totally) any sales of CDs today there still will be enough musicants to fill the void (yes, some will be ruined but it'll be minority!) So while MPAA can survive with appropriate change in direction RIAA can not. And they will find a way to harass everyone till they'll run out of power - and it does not matter if you are doing something illegal today
Posted Jun 26, 2004 15:22 UTC (Sat)
by XERC (guest, #14626)
[Link]
Would you hate me too for distributing music without premission,
Posted Jun 24, 2004 19:49 UTC (Thu)
by blayne (guest, #19468)
[Link] (12 responses)
BitTorrent has quickly become too commercially widespread to be outlawed like this. Big companies are using it to quickly distribute new releases because the bandwidth scales with the demand. Peer to peer networking makes too much technical sense to be a political scapegoat attempt at a solution. And, it isn't stealing. It's copyright infringement. It's still illegal, but it's different from stealing. Anyone who believes otherwise is buying the RIAA and MPIA misinformation. Check the LEGAL definitions. They call it infringement in the court of law and stealing in the court of public opinion. They clearly want their loss of profits to sound as morally wrong as possible. I realize that price gouging and price fixing (of which the RIAA was convicted in a court of law) are no excuse for violating their copyrights, but I think it's probably true to say more people do feel justified illegally copying their music because the RIAA already established the pattern of illegal and unfair market practices. When looking for the reason for copyright violations, they should look in the mirror long before looking at P2P networking. At least P2P networks have a legal use.
Posted Jun 24, 2004 21:47 UTC (Thu)
by ccchips (subscriber, #3222)
[Link] (4 responses)
Now, I didn't say anything about people who *give permission* to copy their own works. That's different. They didn't expect to earn money from their work, maybe because it's their hobby. But that's not unlike donating property (or seeds, or cattle) without expecting any return on your donation, as opposed to selling the seeds or the cattle. The analogy breaks down somewhat, and I truly believe artists and musicians ought to find other ways to earn money than expecting people to buy a million copies of their work, but as long as the expectation is there, and as long as the law supports that view, copying a commercial recording, and putting it up on the internet for distribution witout the creator's permission, is as close to stealing as you can get. You can also be simplistic: Stealing -- taking something without permission. Until people understand that, this is going to get worse and worse.
Posted Jun 25, 2004 4:36 UTC (Fri)
by raytd (guest, #4823)
[Link]
No. It is NOT splitting hairs. It is a matter of law that copyright infringement is NOT theft. There are very good reasons for this. I am a copyright holder, and there are perfectly valid reasons for you to legally copy my work and deprive me of my so called earnings (infringement), as I maintain every right to license or sell those rights. I am a property owner, but you may NOT legally deprive me of my rights to license/lease or sell that property (theft).
There is absolutely no reason to use their definition of terms for the purposes of admitting that there are people that infringe upon the rights of so called content owners. If copyright infringement was intended to mean larceny, It would have been termed that from the beginning. Apologies if I seem harsh, but it seems you have become a victim of brain-washing.
Posted Jun 25, 2004 6:52 UTC (Fri)
by bojan (subscriber, #14302)
[Link]
When someone steals some physical object from you, you don't have it any more. When they infringe on your copyright, you still own the copyright and can make as many copies as you please. Big difference.
Posted Jun 25, 2004 17:42 UTC (Fri)
by Ross (guest, #4065)
[Link]
Posted Jun 28, 2004 12:40 UTC (Mon)
by ekj (guest, #1524)
[Link]
Theft and copyrigth-infringement are two different crimes, with different laws, different results, different punishments and so on. Infact they have pretty much nothing in common whatsoever except for the fact that they are both illegal. If *that* is enough equality that you insist they should both be refered to as "stealing", then I must ask why you don't instead insist on calling it "rape" ? Fact is, those who refer to copyrigth-infringement as "stealing" very frequently either deliberately want to confuse the issues by making people think in analogies of physical property for something that is clearly different, or they are themselves confused about what the differences are. It doesn't get better when the same people commonly start blabbering about IP, without any distinction as to if they're talking about patents, copyrigth or trademarks, all of which are different in important ways.
Posted Jun 24, 2004 21:50 UTC (Thu)
by ccchips (subscriber, #3222)
[Link] (2 responses)
Nonetheless, I see how it came about, and I'm not impressed---not in the least. This is the same abuse of technology (and the rights of others,) as spam. I don't much like the limitations that spam and spyware laws may impose, but until people learn to behave themselves (and it's all our responsibilities to try to get them to,) these kinds of political abuses are going to become more and more common.
Posted Jun 25, 2004 17:43 UTC (Fri)
by Ross (guest, #4065)
[Link]
Posted Jun 25, 2004 19:06 UTC (Fri)
by ccchips (subscriber, #3222)
[Link]
I can use a crowbar to break into a house, but that's absolutely no reason to outlaw crobars. But what if I were a very unscrupulous real-estate company, and wanted to break up a neighborhood. So, I arrange to make sure lots of criminals have crowbars, lock-picks, and all other manner of breaking-and-entering aids (which, themselves, should be legal of course,) to help make the neighborhood less appealing? Wouldn't you think that if the rest of the community found out about it, the guy might be put out of business?
Posted Jun 24, 2004 21:53 UTC (Thu)
by ccchips (subscriber, #3222)
[Link] (2 responses)
My father used to say someting all the time, for which I have great respect: "Two wrongs don't make a right." If people didn't steal (or violate the copyright, or whatever,) the RIAA wouldn't *have* an excuse to become more abusive or *our* rights. It's as simple as that.
Posted Jun 25, 2004 11:41 UTC (Fri)
by cpuffer (guest, #22586)
[Link] (1 responses)
Why? Because if you can make a copy you can make an original (I am talking tech not talent). If the tools for making originals become common and the channels to distribute them become open. Then the studios and labels and publishers could not force extract money from the process. They force up the price for the consumer and pay the artists as little as they can. they can do this because they control the artists access to the consumer and the consumers access to the artist. The technologies that they cry "Piracy" to put down are the same technologies that could force them out of business. (I can understand why they fight). When people make infringing copies they give the moral high ground to the studios and labels and publishers. If infringement stopped they would have to come out and say what they really want a cartel protected by the government. So yes if people stopped infringing then the fight to protect or rights to speak, be secure in our papers, and to enjoy our property would be clearer. But the fight would still have to be. Charles Puffer
Posted Jun 25, 2004 13:10 UTC (Fri)
by ccchips (subscriber, #3222)
[Link]
Posted Jul 1, 2004 22:00 UTC (Thu)
by spitzak (guest, #4593)
[Link]
Posted Jun 24, 2004 22:37 UTC (Thu)
by xorbe (guest, #3165)
[Link] (5 responses)
Posted Jun 25, 2004 11:19 UTC (Fri)
by copsewood (subscriber, #199)
[Link] (4 responses)
Posted Jun 25, 2004 13:18 UTC (Fri)
by ccchips (subscriber, #3222)
[Link] (3 responses)
Let's face it: I've repeatedly said this problem is mainly being caused by people who refuse to abide by the terms of their CD purchases, and are distributing material without permission. Therefore, this has to be handled in 3 ways: 1. Start making an effort to convince your friends and neighbors to stop distributing content without permission 2. Make it clear to your legislatures that you will not allow yourself and your friends, who are law-abiding people, to be dragged into the middle of a fight between the recording companies and those who flaunt the law. 3. Start making an effort (as I am doing) to encourage people to move away from the content providers who act restrictive. There is *plenty* of music around that is either freely distributable or which the composers allow to be downloaded and used as you wish, for personal use. If you encourage and support people like that, then over time the rest of the world won't even be *interested* in "infringing."
Posted Jun 25, 2004 18:11 UTC (Fri)
by jae (guest, #2369)
[Link] (1 responses)
The current market can't/doesn't satisfy their greed (they being RIAA/MPAA... *not* the artist they claim to protect). They find a nice scapegoat. Now mix that with some "Homeland Security" paranoia (and/or fashist control greed)...
Posted Jun 25, 2004 19:11 UTC (Fri)
by ccchips (subscriber, #3222)
[Link]
This is the last I'm going to say, and it's my basic point. This mess is happening on 2 fronts. Don't see it that way if you don't want to. Ignore one of them. Then, when you lose your right to copy for personal reasons (as I have lost my right to own a bong, because the retail industry couldn't bother to police itself against sales to children) don't ask me for any advice because I don't have any left.
Posted Jun 25, 2004 21:29 UTC (Fri)
by khim (subscriber, #9252)
[Link]
If you are thinking this will help then you are seriously wrong. The answer is in subject of why message. What is SCO ? It's dying company which have product no more needed and no more profitable. Instead of adopting to new times it started to sue anyone and everyone: old customers, old partners, etc. What is RIAA ? It's dying "company" which have product no more needed and no more profitable (more about it here). It has budget of many-many billions of dollars instead of less then 100 millions of SCO. That's the only difference. So instead of suing customers and partners it tries to change law and sue everyone. That's all. You must understand what goes on: RIAA is going out of business. It does not matter if people will copy CDs or not. Someone will be sued no matter what and no matter if. Obviously peoples who are "clearly in the wrong" will be sued first. But if everyone will stop making MP3s out of CDs and everyong will stop distributing them then other scapegots will be found nothing will change globally.
Posted Jun 25, 2004 6:57 UTC (Fri)
by bojan (subscriber, #14302)
[Link]
------------------------------------- SYNOPSIS DESCRIPTION As you can see, it has the potential to do copying from multiple sources, which makes it even more dangerous ;-)
Posted Jul 1, 2004 13:48 UTC (Thu)
by clugstj (subscriber, #4020)
[Link] (1 responses)
Posted Jul 1, 2004 20:36 UTC (Thu)
by pkturner (subscriber, #2809)
[Link]
On May 20, EPIC presented the first Champion of Freedom Award to Senator Patrick J. Leahy, ``a great political leader who has worked courageously to safeguard privacy, open government, and democratic participation.''A bitter irony.
See the press release here.
If information is outlawed only outlaws (and the government) will have information. Senate bill bans P2P networks (News.com)
sure P2P has been mostly illegal but what about other applications I can now get Fedora when its released instead of waiting 2 weeks for servers to become uncongested thanks to bittorrent.
What about email? It's a P2P network the way I run it -- my computer contacts yours directly, and it _could_ be used to send copyrighted attachments.What about email?
After they are jailed, American legislators should go after the ISP's and the manufactures of computers, since they are aiding the copying of files.What about email?
Google helpfully adds an ad for "P2P Share Spy" to the page.Thank you Google
Thank you Google
Hey, what gives? You take my money AND you put up ads?
I belive this is common practice in all media. You generate revenue from different sources so as to not over-use any one of them. Why does that surprise you? Haven't you leafed through any computer magazines lately?
While I believe this is bad for freedom, I have to say I can't blame them.Senate bill bans P2P networks (News.com)
My objection agains the big recording operations, by the way, is that they are using this ILLEGAL BEHAVIOR THAT HAS GOTTEN ME REALLY UPSET as a means of getting tighter control over music and movie distribution. In that sense, those of you who are CONTINUING TO STEAL THESE ITEMS are egging these companies on. So, go ahead. But don't talk to me when you suddenly find out you have no rights left.
Senate bill bans P2P networks (News.com)
Oh whatever. What they are doing is already copyright infringement. So withSenate bill bans P2P networks (News.com)
the new law it will be copyright infringement for them, plus for the P2P
product developers. This is like the DMCA on steroids. The DMCA only
affected tools which dealt with copy or access controls, this law could
affect any tool which can make copies. That's pretty much every versatile
computing technology that exists. How is IRC different from Gnutella? How
is Usenet different from Kazaa? How is email different from Bit Torrent?
to force DRM on every computing device, and maybe worse.
Right....and all because people refused to listen when they were told not to copy and *distribute* music without permission.Senate bill bans P2P networks (News.com)
Oh dear. I hear people are still committing murder since Moses told them not to. Senate bill bans P2P networks (News.com)
No, it's more like:Senate bill bans P2P networks (News.com)
I think many people are in my situation: we want to buy music online, but cannot. I go to the local HMV superstore, and it does not have the music I want. I have a large CD collection, which I only use for ripping to ogg or MP3 formats, since it is much more convenient. I would love to be able to just buy that music online, at a reasonable price.
The problem
This is the most insane justification of such evil rights-stripping attemptsSenate bill bans P2P networks (News.com)
I've ever heard... "Well, some people do bad things, so you have to expect
our corporate overlords and masters to punish us all in return for the
wrong-doings of a few! Stop whining, and bow to your masters!"
masters, and not inalienable RIGHTS... You seem to think it's perfectly ok
and justifiable that we ALL lose these freedoms just because some people are
doing things which upset those corporate overlords... It's attitudes like
yours which make their job of taking away our rights so much easier... You
sit back and blame it all on everyone else for messing up a good thing, with
not a bad word for the ones actually DOING it... You excuse their reprehensible
actions as justifiable under the circumstances, and live with it... And, as
a result, we all wind up with a bit less freedom... ;-/
I give up. You know what I'm trying to get across, and that I don't like these new laws either, and that they are evil.Senate bill bans P2P networks (News.com)
> Just stand by and let people copy whatever they feel like.Senate bill bans P2P networks (News.com)
not a cop, nor am I the holder of the copyrights being infringed by all
these other people you speak of... If I were, then I might care, and I
would try to enforce my copyrights... But, I wouldn't try to force the
government to pass insanely draconian laws to help me wipe out any
possibility of anyone ever infringing my copyrights... I already have
plenty of existing laws around to help me enforce my copyrights, without
the need for any others... And, I certainly would NOT expect anyone else
to do my work for me in policing those infringing my copyrights... No one
else has the authority or the responsibility to do so... So, I'm really
not sure what you're trying to get at... If you think preaching to people
not to break the law is going to actually convince anyone to not break the
law, well I think you're more than a little naive... And, if you're
advocating that we should do anything other than such futile preaching,
then I think we simply don't have any authority to do so... I suppose you
can rat people out to the proper authorities, if you really want to; but,
not everyone feels comfortable being a fink... And, we certainly have no
responsibility (legal or moral) to do so... Do you report all speeders
and jay-walkers you see to the cops?? How about if you see someone smoking
a joint at a party you're attending?? Most people live and let live... If
they're not doing anything we find seriously horrible, we don't try to stop
them or get them into trouble over it... And, I for one, don't find
downloading a few MP3s to be seriously horrible, or any worse than the
above-mentioned petty pseudo-crimes...
No point in drawing an analogy with a victimless crime (if you want to call it a crime.)Senate bill bans P2P networks (News.com)
> People view records, CD's, DVD's videotapes, and movies as *products*,Senate bill bans P2P networks (News.com)
> like lamps or furniture.
with you that they view music and movies as "products"... *I* certainly
don't... They're abstract creations of someone's mind... In the same way
that if you told someone a story, they wouldn't view it as a "product"...
Recording yourself telling that story doesn't change that fact... They
would see the physical recording of the story as a "product", perhaps, but
that wouldn't change their feelings about the STORY itself... And, combine
that with people not seeing easily-downloadable digital media as "products"
either, because they're so ephemeral and non-physical, and you understand
why so many people have no problem with downloading music, movies, software,
etc., illegally... It doesn't FEEL like any sort of real-world crime...
Nothing is being "stolen"... If you walk into a store, and swipe a CD or
DVD, then that store has one less physical disc to sell; you've cost them
money... That's obvious to most people that it's wrong... When you just
download a copy of a song/movie, you're not depriving anyone of any money
or physical property... You're just copying digital data... People don't
see it as a big deal... And, I'm one of them who doesn't... Would I like
to see copyrighted works of mine illegally copied online? Of course not...
But, I also wouldn't get TOO overly worked-up about it, either... Because,
they're really not depriving me of much of anything... They're just
'unfairly' getting to access whatever my work is without paying me for the
privilege... Annoying and unfair, perhaps, but not a high-crime, either...
Sort of on par with people who block web ads when going to some web site:
they're unfairly getting access to the site contents, without 'paying' for
the privilege, by viewing the ads that fund the site... Is such a thing
wrong? *shrug* Maybe... It depends on the situation, and your point of
view, I suppose... But, in any case, it's certainly not a major crime
worth getting worked-up about, or trying to turn into the ultimate evil in
everyone's eyes... People will continue doing it, period... There's no
fighting human nature... Sane people will understand that and account for
that in their business plans... I think everyone that releases commercial
software (for instance), knows full well that some number of people WILL
be pirating their software, no matter WHAT lengths they go to to make it
hard to do... But, yet, somehow, the commercial software industry survives
anyway... Why? Because, it really doesn't harm them a whole lot; it just
annoys them... In the end, MOST people WILL pay them, because most people
aren't really evil, heartless assholes... I know, that may be hard to
believe sometimes, but I think it's true... ;-) Of course, SOME people
WON'T pay them, either... But, the thing is, they won't, in ANY case...
So, like I say, they're not much better off whether the thing is pirated or
not pirated... If anything, I'd bet they wind up better off when it IS
pirated a bit, because it spreads it to people who might not have otherwise
seen it, and who eventually cave in and pay for it... Witness Bill Gates'
quote from the story here the other day, actually wanting MS software to
be pirated if anyone's was going to be... He knows it's not really hurting
MS's bottom line much, and is probably much more beneficial than harmful...
Senate bill bans P2P networks (News.com)
Then why not copy what people are offering to copy, instead of taking RIAA material? There are PLENTY of musicians around who are perfectly happy for us to copy, and often even re-distribute, their work.Senate bill bans P2P networks (News.com)
But supporting independent labels and artists does not require passing any kind of laws against P2P networks; it requires (at best) copyright laws, and definitely ones looser than the existing ones. It might not even require that. What you're talking about is totally orthogonal to the actual issue of the bill.
Senate bill bans P2P networks (News.com)
No, it's not. As long as people are permitted to copy and distribute movies and music, there will be abuse. These crazy politicians are trying to stop that abuse by creating a hostile climate for copying, and this I do *not* agree with, because there are far too many legitimate reasons to have that ability, even for movies and music. I oppose this bill.Senate bill bans P2P networks (News.com)
> I cannot understand why people who are so well-versed in the world of FreeSenate bill bans P2P networks (News.com)
> software, as yourselves, don't understand or agree with my point, which is
> that we, as leaders in the movement toward freedom, should encourage others
> to move *away* from RIAA-backed and prohibitive entities, and favor
> entities which are not prohibitive.
futile and unlikely to actually cause anyone to stop listening to RIAA music,
but there's certainly nothing wrong with trying... (It's the same sort of
situation with trying to convince most people to use open source rather
than Microsoft's software... Most people just aren't going to be convinced,
no matter WHAT you say or do... But, that doesn't mean you should stop
trying either...)
> movement that appears to want to ban P2P networks and copying.
wrong about this... If lots of people moved away from RIAA artists, and it
really started hurting them, then they'd probably get even MORE rabid and
determined in the pursuit of such evil laws... After all, they'd have
demonstrably proven negative effects on their business now... (Whereas, if
it's THEIR music being copied, there's really NO negative effect on their
business... Despite their rabid claims to the contrary... Most studies
have shown that, if anything, music sharing INCREASES their CD sales...)
And, if there's even ONE copy of ONE of their songs floating around somewhere
out there, they'd be able to blame it all on the evil Internet pirates, and
still convince the law-makers that they've bought and paid for to come up
with more draconian laws... Indeed, many people have said that the REAL
reason the RIAA wants to eliminate P2P now is for precisely this reason:
they're worried that such easy access to so much music will cause people to
migrate to independent bands, and cause more bands to want to go independent,
and then the RIAA will lose all of their control... I think this theory is
probably exactly right... They're not worried about losing money from any
'piracy'; as has been shown, they AREN'T losing any money because of it...
They're worried about losing their grip on artists, and their complete
control over the entire music industry... And, rightfully so; they're on
the verge of becoming completely and totally obsolete...
Much food for thought here....good analysis.Senate bill bans P2P networks (News.com)
Senate bill bans P2P networks (News.com)
I understand,that if I were living in the U.S., then I should alsoSenate bill bans P2P networks (News.com)
get a premission to distribute my own creations, specially, if it
infridges some software patent or other totally trival patent.
if I had any music to distribute?
This is similar to passing more gun control laws to stop violent crime. Just as violent crime is not caused by guns, P2P networks don't cause copyright infringement. Fix the problem instead of trashing everyone's rights just because they're inconvenient to you. Trying to fix an intermediate process never fixes the problem and penalizes legitimate users.Senate bill bans P2P networks (News.com)
Split hairs (it's copyright infringement, not stealing.) I give you permission to have a copy of my work, at some set price. You violate that by copying it, and giving copies to your friends. How is that different from stealing? They all have copies, I don't have my earnings.Senate bill bans P2P networks (News.com)
Split hairs (it's copyright infringement, not stealing.)
Senate bill bans P2P networks (News.com)
> Split hairs (it's copyright infringement, not stealing.) I give you permission to have a copy of my work, at some set price. You violate that by copying it, and giving copies to your friends. How is that different from stealing? They all have copies, I don't have my earnings.Senate bill bans P2P networks (News.com)
Well for one thing it didn't deprive anyone of their property. For anotherSenate bill bans P2P networks (News.com)
no trespass, breaking-and-entering, robbery, etc. would be involved. What
is actually owned in your example is not the work, but the exclusive right
to copy. A right can be infringed or denied, but it can not be stolen. But
yes, I agree it's illegal and probably immoral too if you believe that
everyone should play by the same rules.
It's not hairsplitting.Senate bill bans P2P networks (News.com)
I also want to point this out, in case it's not clear: I don't agree with this bill, and I plan to fight it.Senate bill bans P2P networks (News.com)
Yes, fine. But do you agree this is like making email clients illegalSenate bill bans P2P networks (News.com)
because some people use them to send spam?
Under no circumstances do I view tools as people. The tools do not perform the acts in question here, people do.Senate bill bans P2P networks (News.com)
Regarding the end of your post:Senate bill bans P2P networks (News.com)
NO THE STUDIOS AND THE LABELS AND THE PUBLISHERS WOULD STILL BE COMPLAINING and trying to take away our basic rights. Senate bill bans P2P networks (News.com)
You better believe it. They would then have no excuse.
Senate bill bans P2P networks (News.com)
This is more like outlawing guns in a parallel world where guns, nail guns, paint sprayers, Seems a lot worse than banning guns
and hairdryers were all the same device, and you had to outlaw all of them.
In other news, TCP/IP has been banned.
Senate bill bans P2P networks (News.com)
Why restrict yourself to layer 4 ? How about banning Ethernet and the transistor ? I'm part of the rest of the world laughing all the way to the bank as America legislates itself into the stone age.
Senate bill bans P2P networks (News.com)
Be warned: If they get away with this nonsense in the U.S., then it will definitely spread to other countries.Senate bill bans P2P networks (News.com)
Bullshit.Senate bill bans P2P networks (News.com)
Not bullshit.Senate bill bans P2P networks (News.com)
RIAA = SCO on serious steroids
It is called "cp". It induces "copyright infringement" by design. Here is the relevant section from the manual:Just found one...
NAME
cp - copy files and directories
cp [OPTION]... SOURCE DEST
cp [OPTION]... SOURCE... DIRECTORY
cp [OPTION]... --target-directory=DIRECTORY SOURCE...
Copy SOURCE to DEST, or multiple SOURCE(s) to DIRECTORY.
-------------------------------------
When did LWN become /.
Senate bill bans P2P networks (News.com)
1. cchips vociferously argues his point of view.Proves it's not /.
2. Someone responds "Now, THIS I think many people might disagree with... I think you're just wrong about this..." and explains.
3. cchips concedes "Much food for thought here....good analysis."