| |||||||||||
|
| |||||||||||
Senate bill bans P2P networks (News.com)Senate bill bans P2P networks (News.com)Posted Jun 24, 2004 19:49 UTC (Thu) by blayne (guest, #19468)Parent article: Senate bill bans P2P networks (News.com) 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. 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.
(Log in to post comments)
Senate bill bans P2P networks (News.com) Posted Jun 24, 2004 21:47 UTC (Thu) by ccchips (guest, #3222) [Link] 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.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.
Senate bill bans P2P networks (News.com) Posted Jun 25, 2004 4:36 UTC (Fri) by raytd (guest, #4823) [Link] Split hairs (it's copyright infringement, not stealing.)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.
Senate bill bans P2P networks (News.com) Posted Jun 25, 2004 6:52 UTC (Fri) by bojan (subscriber, #14302) [Link] > 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.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.
Senate bill bans P2P networks (News.com) Posted Jun 25, 2004 17:42 UTC (Fri) by Ross (subscriber, #4065) [Link] Well for one thing it didn't deprive anyone of their property. For anotherno 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.
Senate bill bans P2P networks (News.com) Posted Jun 28, 2004 12:40 UTC (Mon) by ekj (subscriber, #1524) [Link] It's not hairsplitting.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.
Senate bill bans P2P networks (News.com) Posted Jun 24, 2004 21:50 UTC (Thu) by ccchips (guest, #3222) [Link] 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.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.
Senate bill bans P2P networks (News.com) Posted Jun 25, 2004 17:43 UTC (Fri) by Ross (subscriber, #4065) [Link] Yes, fine. But do you agree this is like making email clients illegalbecause some people use them to send spam?
Senate bill bans P2P networks (News.com) Posted Jun 25, 2004 19:06 UTC (Fri) by ccchips (guest, #3222) [Link] Under no circumstances do I view tools as people. The tools do not perform the acts in question here, people do.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?
Senate bill bans P2P networks (News.com) Posted Jun 24, 2004 21:53 UTC (Thu) by ccchips (guest, #3222) [Link] Regarding the end of your post: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.
Senate bill bans P2P networks (News.com) Posted Jun 25, 2004 11:41 UTC (Fri) by cpuffer (guest, #22586) [Link] NO THE STUDIOS AND THE LABELS AND THE PUBLISHERS WOULD STILL BE COMPLAINING and trying to take away our basic rights.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
Senate bill bans P2P networks (News.com) Posted Jun 25, 2004 13:10 UTC (Fri) by ccchips (guest, #3222) [Link] You better believe it. They would then have no excuse.
Seems a lot worse than banning guns Posted Jul 1, 2004 22:00 UTC (Thu) by spitzak (subscriber, #4593) [Link] This is more like outlawing guns in a parallel world where guns, nail guns, paint sprayers,and hairdryers were all the same device, and you had to outlaw all of them.
|
|||||||||||