arstechnica.com— The RIAA's argument that making files available for download constitutes copyright infringement received an important boost from a federal judge.
Dec 11, 2006View in Crawl 4
This is crap.Using this judges interpretation, a store owner is guilty of stealing because he does not lock his products to the shelves and gives the thief the opportunity to steal.Giving someone an opportunity to commit a crime just because you do not want to encrypt or secure your data does not make you a criminal.
personally, i truly think it's come to a point where these stories, these rulings, hell, the whole goddamn issue is completely irrelevant.People are going to do as they please because they have the power to do so. Piracy simply cannot be stopped because there are always ways around the tactics used to try and circumvent it. The RIAA is a dinosaur, inexorably sinking into the tar pit of irrelevancy.
Well no s**t. Free distribution at that. This should be encouraged. And to those studio suits - earn your salary by figuring out a way to make it profit. Work for your customers and the studio. Make us happy you silly f**k.
For some reason, I thought a musician played music so that others can hear and listen. You're not even an artist I bet. You're probably more worried about your materialist ways than the concerns of the poor artist who everyone wanted to listen to. These people are not profiting from the artist either. If cars were free and could not be damaged, then i might not have a problem letting my friends lending my car out. But since music is not tangible and THERE IS A BENEFIT of having many people listen to an artists' music, all I'm doing is excercising my freedom, breaking the shackles of slavery.If you make a stick of gum that can last forever, you should expect that i can chew it and give it, share it with whomever I want. I should be able to do whatever i please with it. Chew it and pass it to someone else. Do you see a problem with that? Or do you see a control over the chewer because you know that gum will wear out? This is more about protecting profit with disregards to the people's freedoms.
I hope there is no RIAA for the blogger industry association of america. Then we can blame google and all the other search engines for copying and indexing websites. The RIAA should just have the entire internet shut down. ::
Hey, I guess parents should start teaching kids not to share. If you're sharing, you're giving something to someone else... and that's distribution! Oh no! Sharing is terrible!
@bixingIt's more than just music: It's a copyrighted work, and one for which you need to compensate the artist for creating and performing for your listening enjoyment. I know there's no getting through to dips**ts like yourself, but I wanted to make sure that I corrected your entirely incorrect and naive assumptions.
Common_Sense0_oDec 11, 2006
This is crap.Using this judges interpretation, a store owner is guilty of stealing because he does not lock his products to the shelves and gives the thief the opportunity to steal.Giving someone an opportunity to commit a crime just because you do not want to encrypt or secure your data does not make you a criminal.
vegangDec 11, 2006
Tell it to Oliver Stone.
nuxxDec 11, 2006
personally, i truly think it's come to a point where these stories, these rulings, hell, the whole goddamn issue is completely irrelevant.People are going to do as they please because they have the power to do so. Piracy simply cannot be stopped because there are always ways around the tactics used to try and circumvent it. The RIAA is a dinosaur, inexorably sinking into the tar pit of irrelevancy.
macewanDec 11, 2006
Well no s**t. Free distribution at that. This should be encouraged. And to those studio suits - earn your salary by figuring out a way to make it profit. Work for your customers and the studio. Make us happy you silly f**k.
tranixDec 12, 2006
Burn backup copies of all my movies & cds, set them on my porch, they get stolen = I'm now a distributor and get sewed?
digitally5Dec 12, 2006
For some reason, I thought a musician played music so that others can hear and listen. You're not even an artist I bet. You're probably more worried about your materialist ways than the concerns of the poor artist who everyone wanted to listen to. These people are not profiting from the artist either. If cars were free and could not be damaged, then i might not have a problem letting my friends lending my car out. But since music is not tangible and THERE IS A BENEFIT of having many people listen to an artists' music, all I'm doing is excercising my freedom, breaking the shackles of slavery.If you make a stick of gum that can last forever, you should expect that i can chew it and give it, share it with whomever I want. I should be able to do whatever i please with it. Chew it and pass it to someone else. Do you see a problem with that? Or do you see a control over the chewer because you know that gum will wear out? This is more about protecting profit with disregards to the people's freedoms.
digitally5Dec 12, 2006
I hope there is no RIAA for the blogger industry association of america. Then we can blame google and all the other search engines for copying and indexing websites. The RIAA should just have the entire internet shut down. ::
grayfox777Dec 12, 2006
Hey, I guess parents should start teaching kids not to share. If you're sharing, you're giving something to someone else... and that's distribution! Oh no! Sharing is terrible!
6ixstringjackDec 12, 2006
With all the Doublethink in here I'd think it was 1984. 2 + 2 still equals 4 doesn't it?Maybe I should ask Judge Aiken to answer that for me.
jammerDec 24, 2006
@bixingIt's more than just music: It's a copyrighted work, and one for which you need to compensate the artist for creating and performing for your listening enjoyment. I know there's no getting through to dips**ts like yourself, but I wanted to make sure that I corrected your entirely incorrect and naive assumptions.
topicnationMay 1, 2007
Very sweet, dugg it.