Judge for TPB trial member 2 pro-copyright groups, oops.
- Thread starter doho7744
- Start date
[quote name='mykevermin']Koggit, I'm still w/ the analogy I originally made. TPB is a technological means by which illegal copyright can be done, but it also serves some potential for legitimate use. Just like Player Pianos, VCRs, cassettes, floppy disk drives, etc. Most of which have had the same kind of "device for copyright infringement" accusations levied at them.[/QUOTE]
those devices' intended & primary use is legal, and they're marketed as such. tpb's name alone says enough, the owners' blog posts say more than enough.. tpb's intended & primary use is illegal.
it's the difference between a 7/11 selling a ballpoint pen vs a syringe. a wood axe vs a bomb. differentiation must be made.
what if a youtube-esque porn site, user-submitted stuff, had a lot of child porn. are the site owners free of guilt? of course not. and it makes little difference whether or not the files are stored on the server directly, so long as the server is what's enabling the transfer (tpb's trackers). that's just the difference between a madame sucking your dick for $ herself or having her whores do it. for that matter, what if tpb didn't remove child porn? surely then you'd consider them immoral criminals, right?
those devices' intended & primary use is legal, and they're marketed as such. tpb's name alone says enough, the owners' blog posts say more than enough.. tpb's intended & primary use is illegal.
it's the difference between a 7/11 selling a ballpoint pen vs a syringe. a wood axe vs a bomb. differentiation must be made.
what if a youtube-esque porn site, user-submitted stuff, had a lot of child porn. are the site owners free of guilt? of course not. and it makes little difference whether or not the files are stored on the server directly, so long as the server is what's enabling the transfer (tpb's trackers). that's just the difference between a madame sucking your dick for $ herself or having her whores do it. for that matter, what if tpb didn't remove child porn? surely then you'd consider them immoral criminals, right?
rickonker
CAGiversary!
[quote name='georox']I'll expand my comment, which likely someone has expanded on since the time of original posting...
By that I meant when something is physically stolen, there is a loss. Somebody lost property/money/etc.
When something is "pirated", nothing is lost. It doesn't vanish, they don't lose money (Again, people likely wouldn't buy it to begin with, and many people pirate before legitimately buying) and it doesn't make these asshat CEO's of record labels poorer. There was no sale to start with, hence no loss, hence not stolen. If piracy was the equivalent of something being stole, there would be a loss.
People are cheap, they likely wouldn't buy 90% of what they pirate anyways.
For the record, all but one album on my PC I legally own, that album I do not legally own due to the pricepoint of it. (eBay up Mindless Self Indulgence - Tight sometime, seriously. It's
ing expensive for a CD. If someone wants to give me a copy though, I'll accept it.)
I will also say due to the methods the RIAA uses for prosecuting people, I will no longer buy albums from any artist who is with a label under the RIAA flag. I stick to a lot of foreign/independent music now.[/QUOTE]
Exactly, so why was the pic only "partially true"?
By that I meant when something is physically stolen, there is a loss. Somebody lost property/money/etc.
When something is "pirated", nothing is lost. It doesn't vanish, they don't lose money (Again, people likely wouldn't buy it to begin with, and many people pirate before legitimately buying) and it doesn't make these asshat CEO's of record labels poorer. There was no sale to start with, hence no loss, hence not stolen. If piracy was the equivalent of something being stole, there would be a loss.
People are cheap, they likely wouldn't buy 90% of what they pirate anyways.
For the record, all but one album on my PC I legally own, that album I do not legally own due to the pricepoint of it. (eBay up Mindless Self Indulgence - Tight sometime, seriously. It's
ing expensive for a CD. If someone wants to give me a copy though, I'll accept it.)I will also say due to the methods the RIAA uses for prosecuting people, I will no longer buy albums from any artist who is with a label under the RIAA flag. I stick to a lot of foreign/independent music now.[/QUOTE]
Exactly, so why was the pic only "partially true"?
mykevermin
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 34 (97%)
[quote name='Koggit']those devices' intended & primary use is legal, and they're marketed as such. tpb's name alone says enough, the owners' blog posts say more than enough.. tpb's intended & primary use is illegal.[/quote]
that's not a very convincing argument. what they actually name it is irrelevant.
must? how? why? based on what legal standard?
You can buy a miniature red rose in a glass tube at a 7/11, you know. But nobody is interested in the red rose, they're interested in the glass pipe it comes in. And nobody has ever been convicted of selling a red rose in a glass pipe.
camoor tried to call me out on technological knowledge, but did so poorly. the advantage tpb has over this analogy above is that the porn site would host - therefore, have possession of, the child porn. tpb does not possess or host any copyrighted material. they are the conduit by which people go about getting it, though.
that's not a very convincing argument. what they actually name it is irrelevant.
must? how? why? based on what legal standard?
You can buy a miniature red rose in a glass tube at a 7/11, you know. But nobody is interested in the red rose, they're interested in the glass pipe it comes in. And nobody has ever been convicted of selling a red rose in a glass pipe.
camoor tried to call me out on technological knowledge, but did so poorly. the advantage tpb has over this analogy above is that the porn site would host - therefore, have possession of, the child porn. tpb does not possess or host any copyrighted material. they are the conduit by which people go about getting it, though.
mykevermin
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 34 (97%)
Hmm. That's an interesting proposition, but one that exists well outside the boundaries of copyright law so as to, I'd argue, be moot to this conversation.
JolietJake
Banned
[quote name='mykevermin']I don't know if you mean this as a defense of piracy, but one response to how little we think bands make from album sales that is counterproductive is to pirate the albums, taking away the already paltry sum they get, in effect giving them less money. That's not a proper lesson, y'know.[/quote]
I don't mean it as a direct defense, but i do hope it shines some light on the "piracy hurts the artist" line that many people like to use. The way the music business works hurts the artist, they make so little on album sales that the record companies are the ones who really are hurt by piracy. Even that is debatable.
I don't mean it as a direct defense, but i do hope it shines some light on the "piracy hurts the artist" line that many people like to use. The way the music business works hurts the artist, they make so little on album sales that the record companies are the ones who really are hurt by piracy. Even that is debatable.
mykevermin
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 34 (97%)
Oh, no. I get that logic. I think it's dismal logic and more of an excuse. If you're really concerned about artist well-being, go protest, or send a letter to Warner Bros. But downloading an album for free and continuing to sit on your ass, doing nothing else for the "cause" shows me that this is little more than an excuse for continued gluttony.
[quote name='mykevermin']Hmm. That's an interesting proposition, but one that exists well outside the boundaries of copyright law so as to, I'd argue, be moot to this conversation.[/QUOTE]
that feels like a bit of a cop out.. i don't see how the arguments are exclusive. either they (their trackers) are responsible for the transfer or they aren't, regardless of what's being transferred it should be possible to objectively determine responsibility for the transfer.
that's the whole argument. tpb likes to pretend they're just providing an infrastructure and what people do with it is none of their concern. it's an argument that only stands in these sorts of debates because of people's underlying misgivings regarding intellectual property law. IP law is controversial and highly debatable. but we're not debating IP law. we (and TPB) are debating responsibility. it's simply are they or are they not responsible for the transfers their trackers orchestrate, and i think the child porn hypothetical is a good one because it shows the underlying issue clearly by removing the IP law controversy.
the trackers enable the transfer. if TPB didn't run their own trackers they'd have an argument, but they do, so they're absolutely responsible for the transfers and should be treated no differently than had the files been hosted locally. only then does the argument fall into the debatable realm of IP law and whether or not copyrighted material deserves such protection...
that feels like a bit of a cop out.. i don't see how the arguments are exclusive. either they (their trackers) are responsible for the transfer or they aren't, regardless of what's being transferred it should be possible to objectively determine responsibility for the transfer.
that's the whole argument. tpb likes to pretend they're just providing an infrastructure and what people do with it is none of their concern. it's an argument that only stands in these sorts of debates because of people's underlying misgivings regarding intellectual property law. IP law is controversial and highly debatable. but we're not debating IP law. we (and TPB) are debating responsibility. it's simply are they or are they not responsible for the transfers their trackers orchestrate, and i think the child porn hypothetical is a good one because it shows the underlying issue clearly by removing the IP law controversy.
the trackers enable the transfer. if TPB didn't run their own trackers they'd have an argument, but they do, so they're absolutely responsible for the transfers and should be treated no differently than had the files been hosted locally. only then does the argument fall into the debatable realm of IP law and whether or not copyrighted material deserves such protection...
mykevermin
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 34 (97%)
I didn't argue if they were or weren't responsible.
But if you really insist upon deciding one way or another, then I'll again defer to the legacy of other devices' case law histories, respectively. Sony's not culpable b/c you could copy your child porn on your VCR.
Providing someone a tool that can be used for legitimate means or illegitimate means does not implicate criminal culpability. Child porn or not.
Satisfied?
But if you really insist upon deciding one way or another, then I'll again defer to the legacy of other devices' case law histories, respectively. Sony's not culpable b/c you could copy your child porn on your VCR.
Providing someone a tool that can be used for legitimate means or illegitimate means does not implicate criminal culpability. Child porn or not.
Satisfied?
Trancendental
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 4 (100%)
[quote name='mykevermin']Go find the criminal definition of "theft" and show me how piracy does not fall in line with the letter of the law. There's your homework. Talk law, not philosophy.[/quote]
The jury is (literally) still out on the definition of copyright infringement, but I assure you that simple theft is not an appropriate analogy. According to the law you are violating the rights of the content creator to control how his content is distributed for a set period of time (99 years plus thanks to the mickey mouse legislation). The purported damages of copyright infringement do not approch those of theft (thought experiment, if you were a successful muscian would you rather have 16 bucks stolen out of your wallet or your album downloaded once by a pirate) "You wouldn't steal a wallet, so why would you steal a tune" is so ridiculous that even children laugh at RIAA propaganda efforts.
[quote name='mykevermin']Any reason that you deleted the part of my post where I cited Napter (the legal "BMG" Napster) and Rhapsody and THEN asked me for examples? Are you illiterate or just a shit?[/quote]
I didn't realize that was your arguement. These are OK options but they don't approach the variety or feature set of P2P in its hayday. And we wouldn't even have these options if the original Napster hadn't blazed the way, after all the major label cabal had the physical media distribution market sewed up and little incentive to give the consumer what they wanted.
[quote name='mykevermin']Right. This is a protest. This is a social movement. Ha. This is the people "up in arms" fighting the music industry. You can achieve the same result in terms of protest by neither buying nor downloading, you know. Record companies make the same amount of money either way. So stop trying to justify your gluttony by acting like there's a in' social cause connected to downloading your Kenny G albums.[/quote]
Bad behavior on both sides of the aisle and some music industry reform advocates tend to get a little preachy. But let's not beat up the big bad consumer in defense of the poor major labels and their starving musicians. Is it good that the RIAA can sue ordinary Americans into oblivion (200+ grand) for downloading a handful of tunes? I know you love the law but I think reason behind the law is important too, where has the intent gone? Why do you want to ignore the reason for copyright in the first place, the incentive to create? Today it's more about protecting major label players (IE will someone please think of the musicians who are forced to forego gold-encrusted shark tanks, must fly in Gulfstream-3 jets (instead of Gulfstream-4 jets), and can't purchase islands for their children's birthdays). That's from Southpark BTW, unlike major label muscians I always cite my sources.
[quote name='mykevermin']As I drove back-n-forth to C-bus today, the feeling I get (pure theory ahead) is that this doesn't "feel" like a crime. Click a few links, download something. We do that legitimately all the ing time. So it doesn't really "feel" like we're committing a crime. It's easy to rationalize the behavior, since we're mimicking the very acts we do legally all the time, but with a criminal result.
Illegal downloading doesn't require what we might call "criminal intent," since few of us think that way. We have to rather restrain ourselves from downloading. Had that happen to me today, in fact. Overheard a Notorious BIG song on the telly, thought "man, I like that - maybe I should get it." And I didn't. Why? Because I have something you lack - will power.[/quote]
It's funny you mention generic hip-hop being that this music is filled with copyright infringement issues, however labels and musicians only raise the spectre of copyright infringement when it suits their purposes. Purposes which I believe are counter-intuitive, I see nothing noble or educational in using copyright infringement to play legal whack-a-mole for show.
I know you love evidence, this is my personal favorite:
www.youtube.com/watch?v=rIEijimuzr8&feature=response_watch
[quote name='mykevermin']Save your self-righteousness. Your taking some absurd examples of copyright extensions doesn't invalidate the entire concept, yet you're more than willing to throw out the baby with the bathwater of the concept on the whole. Trust me, I've been reading up on some pretty ing shitty-ass trademark lawsuits that I oppose.
But you'll forgive me if, unlike you, I prefer nuance to the intellectual simplicity of all-or-nothing you espouse.[/quote]
I love nuance too! After all I'm just trying to make the point that the music industry brought this upon themselves, through mistep after mistep they alienated their existing consumer base and failed to transition from physical-to-digital media. This was a tried-and-convicted price-fixing cartel that was drunk on power and didn't want to give up the control afforded by distribution of physical media, they had been sold on bad sci-fi where consumers paid for every press of the play, fast forward, and rewind buttons.
It's sad it had to get to this state, but we wouldn't have the (meager) legal digital options we do today if brilliantly simple P2P programs like Napster, Aimster, Kazaa lite, etc hadn't blazed the way. In fact we still don't have the many of the great features those programs offered. When there are no angels sometimes you have to accept the fact that maybe change was inevitable, with digital media maybe there was no place for every one of your friends with record stores, and the only thing that major labels did when they shut their ears and screamed "LALALA" to digital music distribution was open the doors to unregulated P2P.
We need to preserve the impetus to create art but this doesn't necessitate an all-out legal war on unsuspecting consumers who dabble in downloading. You love to lecture about the futility of draconian punishment but you're being remarkably lax about the RIAA. You're on the right track in your paragraph above with your theory about why people download, but I don't think you see the entire picture because you've never waded out into the shore of digital music - it's not all wine and roses, there's a reason that many people including myself go back to youtube, legal internet radio, and the occasional CD when we would much rather be using a legal digital music system that met the basest of our expectations to get a reasonable return for our hard-earned.
The jury is (literally) still out on the definition of copyright infringement, but I assure you that simple theft is not an appropriate analogy. According to the law you are violating the rights of the content creator to control how his content is distributed for a set period of time (99 years plus thanks to the mickey mouse legislation). The purported damages of copyright infringement do not approch those of theft (thought experiment, if you were a successful muscian would you rather have 16 bucks stolen out of your wallet or your album downloaded once by a pirate) "You wouldn't steal a wallet, so why would you steal a tune" is so ridiculous that even children laugh at RIAA propaganda efforts.
[quote name='mykevermin']Any reason that you deleted the part of my post where I cited Napter (the legal "BMG" Napster) and Rhapsody and THEN asked me for examples? Are you illiterate or just a shit?[/quote]
I didn't realize that was your arguement. These are OK options but they don't approach the variety or feature set of P2P in its hayday. And we wouldn't even have these options if the original Napster hadn't blazed the way, after all the major label cabal had the physical media distribution market sewed up and little incentive to give the consumer what they wanted.
[quote name='mykevermin']Right. This is a protest. This is a social movement. Ha. This is the people "up in arms" fighting the music industry. You can achieve the same result in terms of protest by neither buying nor downloading, you know. Record companies make the same amount of money either way. So stop trying to justify your gluttony by acting like there's a in' social cause connected to downloading your Kenny G albums.[/quote]
Bad behavior on both sides of the aisle and some music industry reform advocates tend to get a little preachy. But let's not beat up the big bad consumer in defense of the poor major labels and their starving musicians. Is it good that the RIAA can sue ordinary Americans into oblivion (200+ grand) for downloading a handful of tunes? I know you love the law but I think reason behind the law is important too, where has the intent gone? Why do you want to ignore the reason for copyright in the first place, the incentive to create? Today it's more about protecting major label players (IE will someone please think of the musicians who are forced to forego gold-encrusted shark tanks, must fly in Gulfstream-3 jets (instead of Gulfstream-4 jets), and can't purchase islands for their children's birthdays). That's from Southpark BTW, unlike major label muscians I always cite my sources.
[quote name='mykevermin']As I drove back-n-forth to C-bus today, the feeling I get (pure theory ahead) is that this doesn't "feel" like a crime. Click a few links, download something. We do that legitimately all the ing time. So it doesn't really "feel" like we're committing a crime. It's easy to rationalize the behavior, since we're mimicking the very acts we do legally all the time, but with a criminal result.
Illegal downloading doesn't require what we might call "criminal intent," since few of us think that way. We have to rather restrain ourselves from downloading. Had that happen to me today, in fact. Overheard a Notorious BIG song on the telly, thought "man, I like that - maybe I should get it." And I didn't. Why? Because I have something you lack - will power.[/quote]
It's funny you mention generic hip-hop being that this music is filled with copyright infringement issues, however labels and musicians only raise the spectre of copyright infringement when it suits their purposes. Purposes which I believe are counter-intuitive, I see nothing noble or educational in using copyright infringement to play legal whack-a-mole for show.
I know you love evidence, this is my personal favorite:
www.youtube.com/watch?v=rIEijimuzr8&feature=response_watch
[quote name='mykevermin']Save your self-righteousness. Your taking some absurd examples of copyright extensions doesn't invalidate the entire concept, yet you're more than willing to throw out the baby with the bathwater of the concept on the whole. Trust me, I've been reading up on some pretty ing shitty-ass trademark lawsuits that I oppose.
But you'll forgive me if, unlike you, I prefer nuance to the intellectual simplicity of all-or-nothing you espouse.[/quote]
I love nuance too! After all I'm just trying to make the point that the music industry brought this upon themselves, through mistep after mistep they alienated their existing consumer base and failed to transition from physical-to-digital media. This was a tried-and-convicted price-fixing cartel that was drunk on power and didn't want to give up the control afforded by distribution of physical media, they had been sold on bad sci-fi where consumers paid for every press of the play, fast forward, and rewind buttons.
It's sad it had to get to this state, but we wouldn't have the (meager) legal digital options we do today if brilliantly simple P2P programs like Napster, Aimster, Kazaa lite, etc hadn't blazed the way. In fact we still don't have the many of the great features those programs offered. When there are no angels sometimes you have to accept the fact that maybe change was inevitable, with digital media maybe there was no place for every one of your friends with record stores, and the only thing that major labels did when they shut their ears and screamed "LALALA" to digital music distribution was open the doors to unregulated P2P.
We need to preserve the impetus to create art but this doesn't necessitate an all-out legal war on unsuspecting consumers who dabble in downloading. You love to lecture about the futility of draconian punishment but you're being remarkably lax about the RIAA. You're on the right track in your paragraph above with your theory about why people download, but I don't think you see the entire picture because you've never waded out into the shore of digital music - it's not all wine and roses, there's a reason that many people including myself go back to youtube, legal internet radio, and the occasional CD when we would much rather be using a legal digital music system that met the basest of our expectations to get a reasonable return for our hard-earned.
bread's done