|
|
| Author |
Message |
codemastr
Idler
Joined: 05 Feb 2004
Posts: 353
|
 Posted: Mar 28, 2004 4:08pm Post subject: |
 |
|
| Quote: | | Genocide; the mass-killing of a race does NOT equal copyright infringement. The Germans would not make any money by killing anyone. Your point is totally irrelevant. |
But the majority wants it. I never said it was equivilent to copyright infringement, I said the logic of justification is equivilent. The logic was, "by the people, for the people" well the people wanted genocide. If you say it shouldn't have been allowed, then you don't really want "by the people, for the people." You want "by the people, and for the people, if the people want what is right." And my argument here is, what the people want is not right and therefore should not be allowed. Of course, copyright infringement doesn't compare to genocide, I never said it did. All I said is, the justification of if the majority wants it, you must do it, would by extension support genocide if the people want it.
By the way, the Germans did make money by killing people. Learn your history. When they killed the Jews, they took EVERYTHING they had that could be of value, from the clothes on their back, to the gold fillings in their teeth. Guess what they took it for? Money.
| Quote: | | As stated, you have never been in jail, and neither has any of the big copyright holders. |
Oh I see, so because I've never been in jail, I can't support laws that would put people in jail? So I suppose we have to free all the murders right? I mean, the legislators who passed laws banning murder never went to jail either, so the law must be invalid. Also, have you gone and done a survey of every copyright holder? If not, saying no "big copyright holders" have gone to jail is an assumption. There have been many CEOs to go to jail. In a private company, the CEO could very likely own the copyright, therefore yes, it is more than likely that there have been "big copyright holders" in jail.
| Quote: | | Even spending one day in jail is hard enough. When I was on a field trip with a class, we were given a tour of the local police station. I can easily imagine what it's like to sit in a concrete room with steel bars in front of you. |
Yup, I'm sure it's hard. But as I said the first time, if you can't do the time, don't do the crime. I'm not saying lockup innocent people, I'm saying lockup people who've broken the law. If they don't break the law, they don't have to worry about going to jail.
| Quote: | | Since this all revolves around money, why can't copyright infringers just be given a large fine to pay instead? |
As I said, it's not working. It hasn't stopped the crimes. Also, how is this much different? mregit kept talking about ruining people's lives. How many 16 year olds do you know who have $100,000 laying around? Not many I'm sure. So what happens? To pay the money, they have to give up money that might have been used for medical care, for food, for education, etc. So clearly, by the logic of "lets not ruin anyone's life" the only logical punishment is no punishment at all.
But to compare this to another crime. I break into your house, I steal your car keys, and I use them to steal your car. I get caught. What happens? Do they fine me $5 for the lock I broke on your front door? Nope, they charge me with theft and autotheft (probably other crimes as well). In short, I go to jail. But why? The only damage I've done is monetary. I broke your lock, and fine, even say by driving your car I put some wear-and-tear on it. So maybe I owe you $100 in monetary compensation. So you're going to put me in jail over $100? I didn't hurt anyone, in fact, I broke into your house at night while everyone was asleep and I didn't even so much as frighten anyone because you never knew I was there. So why should I be punished so harshly? I didn't hurt anyone, all I did was cause you $100 in damage. So if you say "monetary" crimes must be solved with money, then the only crimes you think people should go to jail for are things like assault, murder, and rape. Not much else. Most other things come down to not much more than money.
| Quote: | | You used to be right, too. But you aren't anymore. RIAA isn't going out to get money for the artists, they are out to get money for themselves - they are out to make sure they control how music is distributed, and who gets to distribute it. |
Nope, I used to be wrong, completely wrong. The RIAA doesn't have to be out to get money for the artists. The RIAA is rightfully entitled to the money, therefore I have no problem with them getting it for themselves. And why is it so bad they want to control how THEIR property is distributed? If someone stole a letter with intimate details about you, wouldn't you want to have control how it is distributed? Would you like that person to give out information about how you wet the bed until you were 30 years old? Or how you cry yourself to sleep every night? Or about the "dirty" dream you had about your sister? Probably not. It's your property, your information, and you'd want to decide how it is distributed. Well the music is their property, so why shouldn't they be allowed to decide how to distribute it? I'm sure you will refuse to admit it here, but you know I'm right. You wouldn't want that kind of information about you to be known by all.
| Quote: | | Imagine if the Horse and buggy companies were able to lobby the government and prevent Cars from being manufactured |
Umm that has nothing to do with anything? The car did not violate any patents nor copyrights. Filesharing does violate copyrights. How is there a comparison there? I sure don't see one. You're comparing something legal to something that isn't. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Guest
|
| Posted: Mar 28, 2004 5:53pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | | The RIAA doesn't have to be out to get money for the artists. The RIAA is rightfully entitled to the money |
Check your facts - the RIAA also has the right to get money for music that isn't even associated with them. If you are a band, the RIAA has the right to try to collect even if you aren't under any agreement with them.
They -are- evil. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
UberGuest
Guest
|
| Posted: Mar 28, 2004 5:57pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | | Umm that has nothing to do with anything? The car did not violate any patents nor copyrights |
Since you seem to have missed it, there are two issues being discussed.
The first issue is in regards to the RIAA and other groups who have lobbyist getting "more than their fair share" in the eyes of the law. Because they have paid off legislators, it is MORE of a crime for their copyright than anyone elses.
The second issue is that the RIAA is trying to stop advancements. The comparison between the horse and buggy to the car is a valid one. Your point about the legality of the Car (or music in this case) only applies to the first issue, not the second. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Guest
|
| Posted: Mar 28, 2004 6:48pm Post subject: |
|
|
 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
codemastr
Idler
Joined: 05 Feb 2004
Posts: 353
|
| Posted: Mar 28, 2004 9:25pm Post subject: |
|
|
Lets get the message right.
Your message:
"Suing music fans"
"Cheating artists"
"The RIAA is off the hook"
Now the real message is:
"Suing criminals"
"Enforcing the contracts artists agreed to"
"The RIAA enforces the law"
The people they are suing may be "fans," but if a music fan goes up to a lead guitarist in a band, and shoots him in the face, should they leave him alone because he is a "music fan"? He may be a "music fan" but he is also a "criminal." So too are those who download illegal copies of music.
The RIAA is only taking money from artists that they let them take. If an artist wants, nothing prevents them from being indepentant or even starting their own label. But they don't, they join some big label like Sony or Warner Bros., which then deal with the RIAA. If the artists all got together and decided not to support the RIAA, the RIAA would be gone. However, they don't do this. So lets see:
People don't like those who steal from them
The RIAA steals from music artists
Music artists are people
Therefore, music artists do not like the RIAA
That's a logical argument, isn't it? If the RIAA is stealing from artists, they must not like the RIAA, correct? If that's the case, why don't the artists get together and force the RIAA to cease to exist? The answer is simple, the RIAA is not stealing from the music artists.
All the RIAA is doing is enforcing the law and the contracts they have with the music labels. If you don't like that, well then too bad, the law is the law. You can argue with me all you want and show "flashy" images, it doesn't change the facts. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
al5001
Lurker
Joined: 17 Jul 2003
Posts: 181
Location: Canada
|
| Posted: Mar 29, 2004 10:58am Post subject: |
|
|
I'll put the conversation in simple terms so you can understand.
1) Pirate copies music CD and gives it away free without paying copyright holder any royalties.
2) Music CD copyright holder takes pirate to court for lost money on that copied CD.
3) Pirate goes to jail for <= (less than or equal to) 10 years.
The point of the arguement is that jail is too much of a penalty for copyright infringement. By copying a file, you do not STEAL it, you INFRINGE the copyright because you need the author's written permission first before you copy the file. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
codemastr
Idler
Joined: 05 Feb 2004
Posts: 353
|
| Posted: Mar 29, 2004 4:40pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | | The point of the arguement is that jail is too much of a penalty for copyright infringement. By copying a file, you do not STEAL it, you INFRINGE the copyright because you need the author's written permission first before you copy the file. |
I'll say this again and this time make it very clear, what do you do when the current punishment doesn't work?
Suing people is NOT stopping the problem. Something more harsh must be done if the problem is to be stopped. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
DeadWrong
Guest
|
| Posted: Mar 29, 2004 4:51pm Post subject: |
|
|
Financial loss can be crippling. It is every bit as much a deterrent as jail time.
On the other hand, Jail time for something petty just because you're unable to control it still can't be justified.
The problem needs to be seriously looked at with a new perspective.
Do some research on the history of incarceration - you'll find that there is very little evidence that it has ever prevented crime, or that it rehabilitates criminals. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Guest
|
| Posted: Mar 29, 2004 5:04pm Post subject: |
|
|
| codemastr wrote: | | Suing people is NOT stopping the problem. Something more harsh must be done if the problem is to be stopped. |
Since when did the law work with instant results?
If the RIAA wanted to make a point, they'd be taking people to court instead of settling with them.
If they took someone to court, they risk action against themselves too. Remember they are a distribution monopoly. You can't just start up a band and get your tapes distributed. It's not a walk in the park.
Anyway, even if the RIAA took someone to court for real, it would take years for it to be settled and judgements made, then you have appeals to deal with.
You can't expect the law to work immediately, especially if the law isn't even being used. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
codemastr
Idler
Joined: 05 Feb 2004
Posts: 353
|
| Posted: Mar 29, 2004 5:36pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | Since when did the law work with instant results?
If the RIAA wanted to make a point, they'd be taking people to court instead of settling with them. |
As you said, this would take years. If they are suing someone for $100,000 they might have to spend $1,000,000 to fight the legal battle! Not only doesn't the idea of suing stop the problem, it doesn't even work. Are you going to sue someone for the $100 they did in damages to you if it costs you $1000 to get the $100? Any idiot can see that just doesn't make sense. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Guest
|
| Posted: Mar 29, 2004 5:41pm Post subject: |
|
|
| codemastr wrote: | | it doesn't even work. Are you going to sue someone for the $100 they did in damages to you if it costs you $1000 to get the $100? Any idiot can see that just doesn't make sense. |
So you are finally agreeing that you are wrong, and that I was right 
The law does NOT work. It is completely broken, corrupt, and useless.
It punishes the innocent, it actually rapes anyone who comes close to it's grasp, guilty of a crime or not.
And even while you admit that the law does not work, the law is broken, you still want even more severe punishments (that do not work) to destroy even more lives for what is essentially an evil criminal empire that will die regardless of the P2P outcome. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
al5001
Lurker
Joined: 17 Jul 2003
Posts: 181
Location: Canada
|
| Posted: Mar 29, 2004 5:43pm Post subject: |
|
|
People in jail still have internet access. Even in jail, they will still be transferring illegal copies of software. Jail won't stop anyone.
The best you can do is prevent the person from using the internet.
Perhaps the recording industry should lower the prices they charge for each music CD. More people might start buying them.
The moment the music artist sells the copyright rights to the music producing companies, the author of the song no longer owns the piece of music. The artist himself can't even copy his own CDs and give them away, because he/she has given the copyright to a large company in the music industry. All of this is for money in the hands of executives in companies. Whereas the companies normally make $50, 000, 000 per year, now they lose $1, 000, 000 from pirated music. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Guest
|
| Posted: Mar 29, 2004 5:49pm Post subject: |
|
|
| al5001 wrote: | | All of this is for money in the hands of executives in companies. Whereas the companies normally make $50, 000, 000 per year, now they lose $1, 000, 000 from pirated music. |
If you were selling cars, and someone stole it, you have a loss.
If you are selling music, and someone steals a CD, you have a loss.
If someone is giving away free copies of your music, you DO NOT HAVE A LOSS.
The copyright owner doesn't actually lose anything. They are deprived of a POTENTIAL sale. But even then, there is no evidence to show that someone who downloaded the song would have actually bought the song to begin with |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
al5001
Lurker
Joined: 17 Jul 2003
Posts: 181
Location: Canada
|
| Posted: Mar 29, 2004 5:55pm Post subject: |
|
|
Actually, they don't lose anything, you are correct. Nobody has bought the music in the first place, which means they have not gained anything.
However, where they normally would make $50, 000, 000, now they probably make $49, 000, 000 due to less people buying the music, leaving the $1, 000, 000 in the hands of potential buyers whom happen to have downloaded the files for free. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
codemastr
Idler
Joined: 05 Feb 2004
Posts: 353
|
| Posted: Mar 29, 2004 8:15pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | | So you are finally agreeing that you are wrong, and that I was right. The law does NOT work. It is completely broken, corrupt, and useless. It punishes the innocent, it actually rapes anyone who comes close to it's grasp, guilty of a crime or not. |
MY GOD NO. I do NOT admit I am wrong because I am NOT WRONG. You know what? People commit murder every day. That means the laws against murder don't work as a sufficient deterent either. Do you suggest that we legalize murder? Your logic is flawed accept that, and come up with an argument that actually makes sense.
| Quote: | | And even while you admit that the law does not work, the law is broken, you still want even more severe punishments (that do not work) to destroy even more lives for what is essentially an evil criminal empire that will die regardless of the P2P outcome. |
Yes, the law is broken. What I suggest is we fix it, by making the punishment harder. And again, I am NOT destroying anyone's life. I didn't tell ANYONE to steal music, they did it on their own, they destroyed their own life.
| al5001 wrote: | | People in jail still have internet access. Even in jail, they will still be transferring illegal copies of software. Jail won't stop anyone. |
al5001, it frightens me that people know as little about the government as you seem to. It is 100% illegal for inmates to have access to ANY part of the internet that has even the slightest chance of allowing them to communicate freely. They can not use P2P. For example, to quote an Arizona DOC regulation:
| Quote: | | Pursuant to A.R.S. 31-242, effective July 18, 2000, except as authorized by the Department of Corrections, an inmate shall not have access to the Internet through the use of a Computer, Computer System, Network, Communication Service Provider or Remote Computing Service. |
A similar Massachusettes DOC regulation:
| Quote: | | Inmates shall not have access to the Internet, Intranet, and VPN. |
A Q&A on the South Dakota DOC website:
| Quote: | Do inmates have access to the internet and their own e-mail accounts?
No. |
Florida, South Dakota, Massachusettes, Arizona, Pennsylvania, Washington, and all federal prisons ban internet access completely.
The only ones I found allowing it are Hawaii, Ohio, and California. And they do NOT have direct access. They have access to kiosks that are limited to ONLY accessing legal databases such as Lexis-Nexus. In California, by court order, prisoners are also allowed to have printed copies of websites, but not internet access. Ohio only allow inmates access if they are monitored by a guard, and they are accessing the Internet for employment training purposes.
I could probably have found more that didn't, but I don't want to spend the time. However, I found a nice quote from the New York Times, August 1, 2000 an article titled "Using Internet Links From Behind Bars" says, "While no American prison allows inmates access to the Internet, prisoners use third-party services, usually for a fee, to reach out to a potentially huge audience." The article goes on to say that these services are monitored "pen pal" services that allow them to send email, not view websites, and certainly not use P2P. And, the article also mentions that many states have even gone on to ban these services! So al5001, stop making up stuff, do your homework and get your facts straight. As far as I'm concerned, everything that comes out of your mouth is a lie. I've caught you in so many lies, you've lost all credability with me.
| al5001 wrote: | | The moment the music artist sells the copyright rights to the music producing companies, the author of the song no longer owns the piece of music. The artist himself can't even copy his own CDs and give them away, because he/she has given the copyright to a large company in the music industry. All of this is for money in the hands of executives in companies. Whereas the companies normally make $50, 000, 000 per year, now they lose $1, 000, 000 from pirated music. |
No one forced them to sell their copyright. They did it themselves. And yeah, so they only lost $1,000,000. Lets say this. You make $50,000 a year. I steal $1,000 from you (do note that that is the exact same ratio to your original example). Are you telling me that you're not going to care that I took your $1,000? You know you are. And, if you insist on saying that you wouldn't care, I'll give you my PayPal account and you can send me the $1,000 since you clearly don't care about having it.
| Quote: | | If someone is giving away free copies of your music, you DO NOT HAVE A LOSS. |
The fact remains it isn't yours to give! You don't own it! You are an author, and you're selling your new book. I buy your book, and I make copies of it which I distribute for free. Am I stealing your sales? Not technically, but I'm giving away YOUR property. You know that you would not want me to give away your stuff. For example, you wake up one morning to find a man sitting in your car. You ask him what he is doing and he informs you "codemastr gave me your car." Do you intend to tell me you'll say "carry on." And as I said to al5001, if you're going to tell me that is what you'd say, I'll gladly give you my information and you can sign your car over to me right now since you clearly don't care about owning it.
Anyway, I think I'm done with this thread. I posted at least a dozen reasons why it is illegal. All everyone here has done is try and attack one of them. Even if you're correct and that one reason is flawed, it leaves the other eleven that you haven't tried to attack because you know you can't attack! And, when I propose questions to you people you just ignore them.
I asked Guest to explain how understanding the history of copyrights would change my mind - no answer, I asked him when the last time he asked his Congressman to raise his taxes - no answer, I asked him what happens when the majority decides they want 6.5 million Jews killed, must the govt abide - no answer, I asked mregit why should pedophiles be punished for the rest of their lives (even if they change) but copyright infringers shouldn't - no answer, I asked al5001 if not being allowed to support laws that jail people without having been to jail yourself means murder should be legalized - no answer, I asked where he got his info that no "big copyright holders" ever went to jail - no answer, I asked him if I should just be fined $100 for stealing his car - no answer, I asked Guest if he'd like it if someone spread all his personal information around - no answer, I also asked him if a music fan should be acquitted of murdering a musician because he is a "music fan" - no answer, I also asked him to dispute my claim that musicians by extension of logic, do not like the RIAA - no answer, I asked al5001 what do you do when a punishment doesn't stop a crime - no answer, I asked Guest if it is worth it to pay $1000 to receive $100 - no answer. Now lets count, 12 questions that were ignored. Why were the ignored? Because you can't dispute them; if you could, you would have, but you didn't, because you can't. If you want to argue, at least respond to my argument. When I tear your logic apart, don't respond with "well here's something completely different." You explain to me why my rebutal is incorrect. Again, you haven't done it because you can't.
You people are all just fine about spitting out things like "they only lost a million dollars" and "they don't deserve it," etc. But we both know if it was your money that people were stealing, you'd be doing everything they are and probably more.
If you want to debate this in a proper manner, I'll respond. If all you want to do is ignore all the valid arguments I make, and each time I prove one of your arguments wrong, just ignore that and try and make another, then I have better things to do. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
| |
Register
Log in
