Does the Govt have anything else better to do? Feds going after piracy

[quote name='dmaul1114']The corporations definitely suck.

But that doesn't mean we should throw copyright out the window and fuck over the artists even more. Especially as we move into digital distribution and artists being able to self publish books and albums etc.

Nor does anything ever justify piracy. If one hates a corporation, boycotting their products entirely is the way to go. Not acquiring them and enjoying them without paying for them.[/QUOTE]

Nothing ever justifies piracy? It is completely unjustified for a girl scout troop to sing happy birthday for their friend without securing the rights to perform that song? When companies obtain a copyright for the contents of their pesticide, a reporter is not justified in leaking the cancer-causing components of the pesticide to the public? A DJ holding a small house party for friends is completely unjustified when he samples works in a way that has not been cleared by the label?

That would be a fairly extreme position to take.
 
[quote name='camoor']Yeah. For an example walk up to the nearest person and try to take their wallet.[/QUOTE]

What makes your legal claim over that wallet any more "real" than someone's legal claim over the music they created. In theory, one could get a law passed that says "All wallets belong to me." Some countries - and in some time periods, women couldn't own any kind of property. Rules and laws in regards to ownership can and do change - because it's an artificial concept created by man to say "this is mine". Otherwise, we'd all be animals and the strongest individuals would just take everything they wanted.
 
[quote name='dmaul1114']
Nor does anything ever justify piracy.[/QUOTE]

But the new Prince album is so funky :cry: How am I suppose to resist it when no US release date is set and it is being given away in other countries?
 
[quote name='UncleBob']What makes your legal claim over that wallet any more "real" than someone's legal claim over the music they created. In theory, one could get a law passed that says "All wallets belong to me." Some countries - and in some time periods, women couldn't own any kind of property. Rules and laws in regards to ownership can and do change - because it's an artificial concept created by man to say "this is mine". Otherwise, we'd all be animals and the strongest individuals would just take everything they wanted.[/QUOTE]

Even Fred Flinstone could figure this one out. But like I said, try it and see what happens. Pick someone really big and strong.
 
Judge slams, slashes "unconstitutional" $675,000 P2P award
In a ruling today, the judge slashed the $675,000 award by a factor of 10, to $67,500.
...
We checked in with the Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA), which was—as you might suspect—not pleased at having another federal judge reduce a P2P damage award.
"With this decision, the court has substituted its judgment for that of 10 jurors as well as Congress," it said in a statement. "The judge appropriately recognized the egregious conduct of the defendant, including lying to the court about his behavior, but then erroneously dismisses the profound economic and artistic harm caused when hundreds of songs are illegally distributed for free to millions of strangers on file-sharing networks. We disagree with court's reasoning and analysis, and we will contest this ruling."
Click to expand...

http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/...slashes-unconstitutional-675000-p2p-award.ars

LOL real reasonable folks, those RIAA.
 
[quote name='Sporadic']But the new Prince album is so funky :cry: How am I suppose to resist it when no US release date is set and it is being given away in other countries?[/QUOTE]

That is an interesting one-off.

Can you pirate a song in this country when the exact same song is given away in another country?

As speedracer's international piracy link pointed out, copyright crossed borders. Can charity cross borders?
 
[quote name='fatherofcaitlyn']That is an interesting one-off.

Can you pirate a song in this country when the exact same song is given away in another country?

As speedracer's international piracy link pointed out, copyright crossed borders. Can charity cross borders?[/QUOTE]
Legally, no. It can't. Again, obsolete laws in the internet age.


The points remain the same, to me.


  • Piracy will always be a problem, and the only things it damages are corporations, and even then the damage is slim.
  • If something is available for free, people will jump at it. Justification isn't needed.
  • The RIAA and MPAA have done NOTHING to make music/movies more enjoyable than a pirated copy, and have done nothing to encourage legitimate use besides scare tactics, outrageous lawsuits, and fines in the hundreds of thousands of dollars.
 
[quote name='camoor']Nothing ever justifies piracy? It is completely unjustified for a girl scout troop to sing happy birthday for their friend without securing the rights to perform that song? When companies obtain a copyright for the contents of their pesticide, a reporter is not justified in leaking the cancer-causing components of the pesticide to the public? A DJ holding a small house party for friends is completely unjustified when he samples works in a way that has not been cleared by the label?

That would be a fairly extreme position to take.[/QUOTE]

I wouldn't call those piracy, those are other types of copy right infringement--some of which need changes to laws.

Piracy is aquiring copyrighted content without paying for it, at least in how I use it. So it only refers to a specific type of copyright infringement where a person has obtained copyrighted material through illegitimate means.

And yes, in that case it is never justified. If you want something that is copyrighted and not freely given away, quit being a cheap ass loser and pay for it. Or check it out from a library, borrow from a friend etc. Or do without it. Those are the only morally solid options. It's a 100% black and white issue to me.
 
[quote name='dorino']Piracy will always be a problem, and the only things it damages are corporations, and even then the damage is slim.[/QUOTE]

Again, not true. Especially as we move into an era of self publishing. In which case your damaging the profits the author/musician etc. and not a corporation.

Though I still think it pathetic that people are ok damaging corporations etc. I go through life trying to harm no one or no thing personally.
 
[quote name='dmaul1114'] It's a 100% black and white issue to me.[/QUOTE]
Piracy is wrong. Anyone who would say piracy is right is a little off, I agree with you.

The black and white mesh together, though, when you get into enforcement, the lawsuits, the riaa/mpaa, and all that. In their eyes, piracy and copyright infringement are one in the same, and fair use is a myth. :/
 
Again, agree with that.

Piracy needs separated from copyright infringement and classified as digital theft.

Once that's done we can focus on copyright laws and getting those of us who do get 100% of our content legitimately fair use of the content that we OWN.

Mixing piracy and other forms of copyright infringement together hinders that effort.
 
[quote name='camoor']Even Fred Flinstone could figure this one out. But like I said, try it and see what happens. Pick someone really big and strong.[/QUOTE]

Go up to someone really big and strong, tell him "You can't have my wallet mother ******. It's got $10,000 in cash in it (show him) and you can't have it. It's mine, it's mine, you dumb piece of ****." Do it when no one else is around. Preferably at night, outdoors.

Pick someone who's works for one of the major record labels and is really big and strong, go up to him and tell him you're going to illegally download all their music and there's not a thing he can do about it. Throw in some profanities. Good times.

Ownership beyond the most basic "biggest guy wins" is artificial. We humans created a system of rules and laws - for various reasons - and we can changes these rules and laws whenever and wherever for whatever reason.
 
[quote name='dorino']Piracy is wrong. Anyone who would say piracy is right is a little off, I agree with you.

The black and white mesh together, though, when you get into enforcement, the lawsuits, the riaa/mpaa, and all that. In their eyes, piracy and copyright infringement are one in the same, and fair use is a myth. :/[/QUOTE]

I dont think in their eyes copyright infringement, and piracy are the same, but I think their actions make them look like they do. What is the most logical step to stop people from copying pirated material, or dding it, and selling it to other people, or giving it away freely? Stop them from copying it. Im not saying I agree with it, but I think they are looking at it that way, I dont think they would honestly care if you made a duplicate copy for yourself, but the problem is that there is no way for them to know thats what your intentions are. Its a backwards way to look at your customers but when you are bleeding money, taking a chainsaw to the problem instead of scissors may be in their best interest. (obviously not ours.)
 
[quote name='Knoell'](obviously not ours.)[/QUOTE]
And that's why they're doing the wrong thing. Again, though, their taking a chainsaw to it hasn't discouraged piracy at all..

So I don't think it's right to say that's still "in their best interests."
 
[quote name='UncleBob']Go up to someone really big and strong, tell him "You can't have my wallet mother ******. It's got $10,000 in cash in it (show him) and you can't have it. It's mine, it's mine, you dumb piece of ****." Do it when no one else is around. Preferably at night, outdoors.

Pick someone who's works for one of the major record labels and is really big and strong, go up to him and tell him you're going to illegally download all their music and there's not a thing he can do about it. Throw in some profanities. Good times.

Ownership beyond the most basic "biggest guy wins" is artificial. We humans created a system of rules and laws - for various reasons - and we can changes these rules and laws whenever and wherever for whatever reason.[/QUOTE]

This is getting so far off-topic that it's hard to see the original thread of the discussion. But then again, that's your specialty isn't it.

It's a semantic arguement you're forging here and a piss-poor one at that. fuck, by your logic an organic fruit salad served in a bowl is artificial because only humans prepare and serve fruit that way. However we would never refer to a bowl of organic fruit as 'artificial' on a menu. In common parlance the designation of 'artificial' is reserved for those objects and concepts borne of especial human artiface, a food example would be splenda or red dye #5.

Physical ownership exists in nature, man has simply tried to bring civility and order to this reality. Don't fool yourself, at some level we're all still subject to the law of the jungle, and if the big guy wants your wallet he's probably going to get it.

Copyright, on the other hand, exists in no way, shape, or form in nature, it is purely a modern manmade conceit, a contrived policy based on the idealistic notion that granting limited monopolies on ideas is the best way to encourage innovation and creativity.

Sheesh.
 
[quote name='dmaul1114']I wouldn't call those piracy, those are other types of copy right infringement--some of which need changes to laws.

Piracy is aquiring copyrighted content without paying for it, at least in how I use it. So it only refers to a specific type of copyright infringement where a person has obtained copyrighted material through illegitimate means.

And yes, in that case it is never justified. If you want something that is copyrighted and not freely given away, quit being a cheap ass loser and pay for it. Or check it out from a library, borrow from a friend etc. Or do without it. Those are the only morally solid options. It's a 100% black and white issue to me.[/QUOTE]
Thinking about it in a financial sense though,. what is the difference between pirating something and borrowing it from a friend? The friend paid for it, but you're getting to use it for free. Now if you had just pirated it, what would change as far as the company which owns it making money?
 
[quote name='Clak']Thinking about it in a financial sense though,. what is the difference between pirating something and borrowing it from a friend? The friend paid for it, but you're getting to use it for free. Now if you had just pirated it, what would change as far as the company which owns it making money?[/QUOTE]

At least one copy was sold there--at least your friend paid for it. And at least a person can only loan a movie/book/cd to one person at a time. While a pirate can upload that copy to a limitless number of people etc. So there's also a difference in scale of potential lost sales.

And legally the first sale doctrine gives people rights to loan or sell things they buy--as long as they don't keep a copy for themselves.

But you're right as Artists, corporations etc. would love to kill the second hand market, libraries, rentals etc. as they do lose sales through those legal outlets. Hence the push to go to digital distribution.

I don't support that, as owners should be able to do whatever they want with content they OWN--other than making copies to distribute to others.

But that doesn't mean there shouldn't be a crackdown on piracy/digital theft to deal with those who get things without paying for them and/or distribute copies to others etc.
 
[quote name='dmaul1114']But that doesn't mean there shouldn't be a crackdown on piracy/digital theft to deal with those who get things without paying for them and/or distribute copies to others etc.[/QUOTE]
Yes it does. There's other priorities.
 
[quote name='dorino']Yes it does. There's other priorities.[/QUOTE]

I'm not saying it should be a top priority.

But there needs to be steps taken to address piracy. Make it a criminal matter (misdemeanor for all but cases involving thousands of files), have an FBI unit in the cybercrimes division that investigates online piracy, require ISPs to hire people to monintor traffic and report piracy etc. etc.

That type of stuff can be done without pulling a tremendous amount of resources from other places.
 
[quote name='dmaul1114']require ISPs to hire people to monintor traffic and report piracy[/QUOTE]

I hope everybody loves having their identity stolen!
 
It already happens. Hence the letters people get from their ISP for downloading copyrighted material threatening to terminate their account if they don't desist etc.

There's no expectation of privacy on the internet, it's a public space. There's never been privacy of digital purchases. Order porn on pay-per-view and it's on your bill and anyone at the cable company with access to records can see it.
 
[quote name='dmaul1114']It already happens. Hence the letters people get from their ISP for downloading copyrighted material threatening to terminate their account if they don't desist etc.[/QUOTE]

That's only if the ISP get a complaint from a company with your IP address.

The ISPs don't actually monitor what you do (although they can and have set up stuff like packet shaping)
 
[quote name='dmaul1114']There's no expectation of privacy on the internet, it's a public space. There's never been privacy of digital purchases. Order porn on pay-per-view and it's on your bill and anyone at the cable company with access to records can see it.[/QUOTE]
There is an expectation of privacy. My e-mail isn't open for everyone to read.

Cable bills and the internet are different things; that analogy makes no sense.
 
Just have to agree to disagree.

There's no expectation of privacy if you go shopping in real stores. So I see no expectation of what you purchase or illegally download online either.

E-mail is the one dicey area---but I'm used to no privacy there. I've mainly used my work (university) e-mail accounts for the past several years. And being a state employee those are public records. Anyone can submit a FOIA request and get my e-mails.

But aside from e-mail, I sell little solid argument for expectation of privacy. You're using a public network, security and privacy aren't guaranteed.

And all the ID theft concerns are silly as well. The ISP already has your name, address, credit card info, and probably social security number etc. Them monitoring heavy downloaders for copyrighted material doesn't create any added ID theft risk. We're already 100% dependent on employees of ISPs, cable companies, other utilities etc. to not steal our identities as they already have all the info needed to do so--at least those that have access to customer account data.
 
[quote name='dmaul1114']

E-mail is the one dicey area---but I'm used to no privacy there. I've mainly used my work (university) e-mail accounts for the past several years. And being a state employee those are public records. Anyone can submit a FOIA request and get my e-mails.

[/QUOTE]

False. (really has nothing to do with the topic at hand ,but just in case you wanted to know: Your own personal emails aren't subject to FOIA because you're a government employee. Emails pertaining to your official role/function could possibly be)
 
[quote name='dmaul1114']Just have to agree to disagree.

There's no expectation of privacy if you go shopping in real stores. So I see no expectation of what you purchase or illegally download online either.

E-mail is the one dicey area---but I'm used to no privacy there. I've mainly used my work (university) e-mail accounts for the past several years. And being a state employee those are public records. Anyone can submit a FOIA request and get my e-mails.

But aside from e-mail, I sell little solid argument for expectation of privacy. You're using a public network, security and privacy aren't guaranteed.

And all the ID theft concerns are silly as well. The ISP already has your name, address, credit card info, and probably social security number etc. Them monitoring heavy downloaders for copyrighted material doesn't create any added ID theft risk. We're already 100% dependent on employees of ISPs, cable companies, other utilities etc. to not steal our identities as they already have all the info needed to do so--at least those that have access to customer account data.[/QUOTE]

So when you do your taxes online or get your taxes done online or fill out FAFSA or other financial aid stuff, you should expect no privacy.
 
[quote name='dmaul1114']There's no expectation of privacy if you go shopping in real stores. So I see no expectation of what you purchase or illegally download online either.
[/QUOTE]

That is one faulty ass analogy.

What you are calling for (the ISPs monitoring where everybody goes online and reporting people who do "illegal" things) is the equivalent of the government putting GPSs on everybody. You know, just to make sure that you aren't going out to score drugs or pussy from known, bad sections of town.

What do you have to fear from that? The Government already knows where you live, work, can easily find out your work schedule and track you from your cell phone use.
 
[quote name='Sporadic']That is one faulty ass analogy.

What you are calling for (the ISPs monitoring where everybody goes online and reporting people who do "illegal" things) is the equivalent of the government putting GPSs on everybody. You know, just to make sure that you aren't going out to score drugs or pussy from known, bad sections of town.

What do you have to fear from that? The Government already knows where you live, work, can easily find out your work schedule and track you from your cell phone use.[/QUOTE]
When I buy something in the store, I expect the employee to be polite; not an asshole. I expect the machine to read my credit card and do most of the work. I don't expect the post office to read my mail. It's not a gray area at all, it's black and white. Don't invade my privacy online, it still exists and to some extent that law still protects me.
 
[quote name='EdRyder']False. (really has nothing to do with the topic at hand ,but just in case you wanted to know: Your own personal emails aren't subject to FOIA because you're a government employee. Emails pertaining to your official role/function could possibly be)[/QUOTE]

Fair enough.

All I know about it is what the university lawyer told us during new faculty orientation. Maybe they just cover their asses and tell you it's all e-mails sent from your .edu e-mail address rather than just ones relating to your official capacity. They also encouraged limiting use of that account for personal e-mails. I don't worry about it personally, as I never e-mail that I'd be embarrassed of others beside the recipient reading/finding out about anyway.
 
[quote name='dmaul1114']Fair enough.

All I know about it is what the university lawyer told us during new faculty orientation. Maybe they just cover their asses and tell you it's all e-mails sent from your .edu e-mail address rather than just ones relating to your official capacity. They also encouraged limiting use of that account for personal e-mails. I don't worry about it personally, as I never e-mail that I'd be embarrassed of others beside the recipient reading/finding out about anyway.[/QUOTE]
Well with a life like that, where nothing you talk about is embarrassing, I wouldn't care about my privacy either. It's not that I have anything to hide from the law, it's that there are somethings I'd rather hide from the public.

Thats privacy, and it exists online.
 
I'm not saying I never talk about anything I don't want others to hear.

Just saying I'm not foolish enough to have any delusions of e-mail being entirely secure or private so I'm cautious with what I send over e-mail. Anything sensitive gets a phone call or face to face conversation. E-mail and the internet is data going over public networks. Expectation to privacy or no, it's not secure and it pays to be cautious with what you do on public networks.
 
[quote name='camoor']This is getting so far off-topic that it's hard to see the original thread of the discussion. But then again, that's your specialty isn't it.[/quote]

Look, dude. You're an adult - or close enough, I assume. If you don't want to discuss something, be an adult and don't respond. It's pretty simple, really.

Physical ownership exists in nature, man has simply tried to bring civility and order to this reality. Don't fool yourself, at some level we're all still subject to the law of the jungle, and if the big guy wants your wallet he's probably going to get it.
Click to expand...

Aside from "Biggest guy (or group) wins", name one example of physical ownership in nature. If a little monkey has a banana and a large ape wants it, do they enter into some kind of trade agreement? Purchase contract?
 
[quote name='UncleBob']Look, dude. You're an adult - or close enough, I assume. If you don't want to discuss something, be an adult and don't respond. It's pretty simple, really.[/QUOTE]

k
 
Back on topic:

Shark_eats_plane.gif
 
[quote name='dmaul1114']I'm not saying I never talk about anything I don't want others to hear.

Just saying I'm not foolish enough to have any delusions of e-mail being entirely secure or private so I'm cautious with what I send over e-mail. Anything sensitive gets a phone call or face to face conversation. E-mail and the internet is data going over public networks. Expectation to privacy or no, it's not secure and it pays to be cautious with what you do on public networks.[/QUOTE]

Again tho, in your particular case: Your emails are private and secure.(Now that I know you have a .edu address)I dont know wtf they told you in orientation but they were probably just trying to cover their asses. But feel free to send those inter office polls about who has the rockin'st tits.

If the reverse was true and you worked for a private company a Judge might be wuicker to allow your emails to be subpoenaed. But I couldn't ever see one ruling a State employee didnt have an expectation of privacy. So all of your own personal cautions aside: If your private emails were intercepted and posted online for everyone to openly read, you'd have an easy lawsuit on your hands.
But if its all about your own personal embarrassment from the contents then idk,.. I cant see anyone being 'shamed' out of their illegal downloading practices because your friends and family might find out you downloaded "Ass Worship 11"
 
[quote name='dmaul1114']Fair enough.

All I know about it is what the university lawyer told us during new faculty orientation. Maybe they just cover their asses and tell you it's all e-mails sent from your .edu e-mail address rather than just ones relating to your official capacity. They also encouraged limiting use of that account for personal e-mails. I don't worry about it personally, as I never e-mail that I'd be embarrassed of others beside the recipient reading/finding out about anyway.[/QUOTE]

.edu account only, yes, is public and susceptible to FOIA requests. Probably doesn't extend to private universities, I imagine.

Other accounts are indeed private, even for the same person. This is clearly evident when news reports about public outrage b/c public officials use private email accounts to conduct business - it's a violation of protocol and harms the idea of transparency.
 
[quote name='dmaul1114']At least one copy was sold there--at least your friend paid for it. And at least a person can only loan a movie/book/cd to one person at a time. While a pirate can upload that copy to a limitless number of people etc. So there's also a difference in scale of potential lost sales.

And legally the first sale doctrine gives people rights to loan or sell things they buy--as long as they don't keep a copy for themselves.

But you're right as Artists, corporations etc. would love to kill the second hand market, libraries, rentals etc. as they do lose sales through those legal outlets. Hence the push to go to digital distribution.

I don't support that, as owners should be able to do whatever they want with content they OWN--other than making copies to distribute to others.

But that doesn't mean there shouldn't be a crackdown on piracy/digital theft to deal with those who get things without paying for them and/or distribute copies to others etc.[/QUOTE]Yeah I meant solely in a friend to friend situation, if i borrowed something from you or pirated it, the loss to the company which owns it is the same. Like you said, they'd love to stop places like gamestop selling used merchandise as they don't profit from it.
 
The way that media companies make deals to restrict their content doesn't help fight piracy either. Case in point, some studios now restrict their movies from being rented out by redbox and netflix for 28 days i believe. Now think about it, say if someone already has a netflix account for movies, do you think they're going to rent a restricted movie through their cable provider like I see advertised, or pirate it?

All this because they feel that rentals are hurting the retail market.
 
It's not restricted to rent out for only 28 days. It's that they can't rent them out in the first month after they're available for sale. After that they can rent them as long as they want.

They're hoping they'll get more sales as people decide to buy rather than wait a month to rent. And yes, I think it's a silly policy and probably does lead to some piracy as people who would have rented hit the torrent sites instead.

At least with rentals they would have gotten some cash from Netflix etc. buying the discs to rent out over that month, so they're really shooting themselves in the foot. But who knows, maybe they are/will get enough added sales in that month to offset any increase in piracy. *shrugs*
 
Eh, 28 days or a month, a few days doesn't matter. I just think that if media companies want anyone to feel sympathy for them, they need to stop doing things like this which may help them, but understandably piss off consumers.
 
I wasn't disputing the length, the way you wrote it sounded like you were saying they were limited to renting the movies for 28 days and then couldn't rent them anymore. Rather than having to wait 28 days to start renting them.

But agreed on that. As I've said many times, the media companies have a long way to go in how they treat consumers, respect fair use etc. They're far from guiltless and need to change a ton on that front.

As the same time, I'm thoroughly anti-piracy as I've made clear and have zero respect for people who pirate things, especially those who then try to justify their actions.
 
[quote name='dorino']...

Really?

See, that's the thing. Piracy is wrong, but it shouldn't take priority over identity theft or kidnappings etc.[/QUOTE]

businesses are people too and piracy is literally the same thing as rape. are you trying to say that rape is less important than identity theft or kidnappings? :dunce:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top