arstechnica.com— A Florida woman accused by the RIAA of file-sharing responds by throwing the book at the record labels. The charges she is making are becoming commonplace in the world of file-sharing litigation.
Jun 4, 2007View in Crawl 4
Not too get too philosophical but concepts of copyright infringement tend to be the creation of western culture. Sometimes its hard to believe but other cultures don't value the content produced by one individual so highly because its inherently a more selfish way of doing things since it favor's the individuals right to procure material goods as the result of one idea.
dugman74: Who cares whether or not she "stole something". They dismissed with prejudice. How do you know she did or didn't steal anything? Who is more evil, her because she "might have stole something" or the RIAA because... well you better damn well know how evil they are.
I find some people have a hard time wrapping their mind around the fact that not everyone who thinks the RIAA is evil is a music pirate.We won't get into the topic of "right" and "wrong" in the massive capitalistic arena of intellectual property. The Native Americans used to hate the way the stupid white men could "buy" land... well now people are "buying" ideas. they're "buying" the sounds of music... Sorry, but just because society is a capitalism, doesn't mean we have to accept that nothing is free and that the corporate word is god.The tactics of the RIAA are illegal, just like copyright infringement. Further, they're "wrong" on a more basic premise.Their profits are holding high. They're bringing suffering to massive numbers of people, many of whom haven't committed the "wrong" they're accusing them of, and twisting the public view so inaccurately it's putting the word "theft" on the lips of people, when it's NOT theft in the lawbooks...and with MUCH harsher penalties than theft, even armed robbery and grand theft auto.
Travel, I think you're missing Rooster's point. He's saying they don't apply now, whether or not you think they should.In layman's terms (and we are laymen not lawyers), copyright infringement is still theft. You're taking goods without paying for them, which puts it on a par with theft. As Rooster said, it's just lazy man's theft.To all intents and purposes it's still stealing. You're robbing people of the money you ought to pay for the music you buy.
"As I said before, a rose is a rose by any other name..."And as I said before as well, just because it has feathers, makes a noise, and s**ts everywhere doesn't make it a duck.Legally, and logically speaking - not talking morals because that does differentiate between people, as it should, it is not theft, will never be theft regardless of how much the RIAA/MPAA/BSA/whatever try to convince us and the politicans factually, and to try and paint it as such factually is a true act of ignorance, in my opinion.
"As I said before, a rose is a rose by any other name. Or in this case, a dirty, wilting, rotten rose. It's theft as far as the man-on-the-street is concerned."Actually, not true. Most people don't consider it theft, hence why most of them engage in it. Nor do the courts, who have generally been quite clear on the distinction. A duck is a bird, a bird isn't necessarily a duck."I've already paid for the rights to the music" Morally you have the high ground. Definitely. However I'm not sure if that stands up as far as legals are concerned. I can't pass judgment.I fail to see why it shouldn't stand up. Their argument is we aren't paying for the rights to their IP. I've paid. Of course we know the real reason for their effort is they really want us to pay for the same content repeatedly, but they know they can't USE that argument, because they know it would never pass muster."in most cases they'd have never paid for it in the first place anyways" - that doesn't make it any less wrong.True. I agree. But punishing the 90% of the population to try to stop the 10% of the population who are going to do it anyways seems rather silly and counterproductive. If anyone thinks the "War on Copyright" is going to be in anyways successful, I simply point your attention to our 20 year old "War on Drug" or our continuing "Zero Tolerance" in schools which have both been abyssmal failures and often produce exactly the opposite of their intended purposes."often benefits band/artists more in the long run" - only really applies to indie artists, who the RIAA doesn't represent anyway.Except that the RIAA claims it does. Matter of fact a lot of Indie labels have had a tough time getting the RIAA to remove their names from the members list because the RIAA claims them and doesn't want to be associated with them. Not to mention that a lot of big name artist are now starting to move away from them as well because they feel the RIAA doesn't represent their ideas or views as well."The want a few dozen "hit" bands they can market and sell a few million copies of and make tens of millions of dollars off of for doing next to nothing" - unfortunately that's still true, despite the Internet. Look at the charts and their sales figures. Everyone is buying the latest s**t hippity hoppity, not the top-notch talent that can be found if you know where to look.Yeah, I agree there."is the RIAA going to sue Exxon/Mobil for costing them about 26 CD sales a year?" - not exactly sure where this fits in. The RIAA is suing the actual copyright criminals, not the people who take their money at the other end of the chain...It doesn't really fit in. Just taking the RIAA's arguments to an extremist point. They're bitching CD sales are down. Well, if the oil companies weren't raking me for over $1 a gallon from six months ago, I could buy even more music (of course I still wouldn't buy anything from the RIAA, but still.....)"copyright is NOT a welfare system" - it is. Look at the name. Copy - rights. The right to copy something. The artists (or more commonly the labels, unfortunately) own this. The music belongs to them, and the copyright ensures that.No it's not. Copyright is intended to help inspire and support innovation FOR A LIMITED TIME (historically 14 years). If you can't produce something new in 14 years, that's your problem. After 14 years it was meant to go into the public domain. You can still profit off your work, but you're no longer guaranteed "exclusive" profit off that work. To use an example: Dean Koontz wrote a couple of Frankenstein novels. Derivative works of Mary Shelly's novel set in modern times. For those who argue for perpetual copyrights, to be fair it should be retroactivated, which means Mary Shelly's descendants could sue Koontz, or at the very least be entitled to some licensing fee for work they themselves never did. And I wonder how Disney would feel, given most of their works are derivative themselves, and retroactive copy protection would allow all those copyrights holders to sue Disney for infringement, or at least force Disney to pay substantial licensing fees for works they refuse to fall into the public domain themselves."In the end copyright is a Good Thing, made with the best of intentions. We certainly should not throw it out as some anarchists who don't really understand the situation propose, but I think it does need a redesign so the actual creators profit from the work, not the labels and the RIAA. I totally disagree with their witch-hunt methods, but morally they are in the right place. Piracy is piracy, and no matter how much you try and justify it with bulls**t about 'the man' it'll remain a form of theft."I agree. I don't think copyright should be jettisoned altogether, merely returned to it's original intention and parameters. I can live with a short term "welfare" system, but like I said before, the more they try to turn it into a perpetual welfare system, the more poeple will simply ignore it. Nor should organization or corporation be able to force content owners to turn over the rights to their works permanently. The labels should be allowed to, at most, "lease" that copyright for a few year (3-5 years should be more than enough for them to recoup any investment they made) and then that copyright should automatically revert back to the "rightful" owner - the artist - to do with as they please.The above wasn't so much directed at you, iconwolf, but at the entire community that seems to think this type of crime is OK.I understand. I used to be very anti-filesharing and pro-copyright (and I still am to some extent) myself up until maybe 3-5 years ago. But as the industry has increasingly butchered and warped the original purposes and intent of the system it's become necessary to try to find ways to balance that deprivation out. I agree, on the whole, "stealing" content or copyright infringement isn't right, but neither is the what the entertainment industry it trying to do. There is no reason the rest of us should have our rights trampled because a small group feels their right are being trampled (or more importantly that they want to change the rules in the middle of the game so they can protect a steady profit margin).
drakethegreatJun 5, 2007
Not too get too philosophical but concepts of copyright infringement tend to be the creation of western culture. Sometimes its hard to believe but other cultures don't value the content produced by one individual so highly because its inherently a more selfish way of doing things since it favor's the individuals right to procure material goods as the result of one idea.
chrismgtisJun 5, 2007
dugman74: Who cares whether or not she "stole something". They dismissed with prejudice. How do you know she did or didn't steal anything? Who is more evil, her because she "might have stole something" or the RIAA because... well you better damn well know how evil they are.
novagenesisJun 5, 2007
I find some people have a hard time wrapping their mind around the fact that not everyone who thinks the RIAA is evil is a music pirate.We won't get into the topic of "right" and "wrong" in the massive capitalistic arena of intellectual property. The Native Americans used to hate the way the stupid white men could "buy" land... well now people are "buying" ideas. they're "buying" the sounds of music... Sorry, but just because society is a capitalism, doesn't mean we have to accept that nothing is free and that the corporate word is god.The tactics of the RIAA are illegal, just like copyright infringement. Further, they're "wrong" on a more basic premise.Their profits are holding high. They're bringing suffering to massive numbers of people, many of whom haven't committed the "wrong" they're accusing them of, and twisting the public view so inaccurately it's putting the word "theft" on the lips of people, when it's NOT theft in the lawbooks...and with MUCH harsher penalties than theft, even armed robbery and grand theft auto.
poorsodJun 5, 2007
Travel, I think you're missing Rooster's point. He's saying they don't apply now, whether or not you think they should.In layman's terms (and we are laymen not lawyers), copyright infringement is still theft. You're taking goods without paying for them, which puts it on a par with theft. As Rooster said, it's just lazy man's theft.To all intents and purposes it's still stealing. You're robbing people of the money you ought to pay for the music you buy.
travelsonicJun 5, 2007
"As I said before, a rose is a rose by any other name..."And as I said before as well, just because it has feathers, makes a noise, and s**ts everywhere doesn't make it a duck.Legally, and logically speaking - not talking morals because that does differentiate between people, as it should, it is not theft, will never be theft regardless of how much the RIAA/MPAA/BSA/whatever try to convince us and the politicans factually, and to try and paint it as such factually is a true act of ignorance, in my opinion.
iconwolfJun 5, 2007
"As I said before, a rose is a rose by any other name. Or in this case, a dirty, wilting, rotten rose. It's theft as far as the man-on-the-street is concerned."Actually, not true. Most people don't consider it theft, hence why most of them engage in it. Nor do the courts, who have generally been quite clear on the distinction. A duck is a bird, a bird isn't necessarily a duck."I've already paid for the rights to the music" Morally you have the high ground. Definitely. However I'm not sure if that stands up as far as legals are concerned. I can't pass judgment.I fail to see why it shouldn't stand up. Their argument is we aren't paying for the rights to their IP. I've paid. Of course we know the real reason for their effort is they really want us to pay for the same content repeatedly, but they know they can't USE that argument, because they know it would never pass muster."in most cases they'd have never paid for it in the first place anyways" - that doesn't make it any less wrong.True. I agree. But punishing the 90% of the population to try to stop the 10% of the population who are going to do it anyways seems rather silly and counterproductive. If anyone thinks the "War on Copyright" is going to be in anyways successful, I simply point your attention to our 20 year old "War on Drug" or our continuing "Zero Tolerance" in schools which have both been abyssmal failures and often produce exactly the opposite of their intended purposes."often benefits band/artists more in the long run" - only really applies to indie artists, who the RIAA doesn't represent anyway.Except that the RIAA claims it does. Matter of fact a lot of Indie labels have had a tough time getting the RIAA to remove their names from the members list because the RIAA claims them and doesn't want to be associated with them. Not to mention that a lot of big name artist are now starting to move away from them as well because they feel the RIAA doesn't represent their ideas or views as well."The want a few dozen "hit" bands they can market and sell a few million copies of and make tens of millions of dollars off of for doing next to nothing" - unfortunately that's still true, despite the Internet. Look at the charts and their sales figures. Everyone is buying the latest s**t hippity hoppity, not the top-notch talent that can be found if you know where to look.Yeah, I agree there."is the RIAA going to sue Exxon/Mobil for costing them about 26 CD sales a year?" - not exactly sure where this fits in. The RIAA is suing the actual copyright criminals, not the people who take their money at the other end of the chain...It doesn't really fit in. Just taking the RIAA's arguments to an extremist point. They're bitching CD sales are down. Well, if the oil companies weren't raking me for over $1 a gallon from six months ago, I could buy even more music (of course I still wouldn't buy anything from the RIAA, but still.....)"copyright is NOT a welfare system" - it is. Look at the name. Copy - rights. The right to copy something. The artists (or more commonly the labels, unfortunately) own this. The music belongs to them, and the copyright ensures that.No it's not. Copyright is intended to help inspire and support innovation FOR A LIMITED TIME (historically 14 years). If you can't produce something new in 14 years, that's your problem. After 14 years it was meant to go into the public domain. You can still profit off your work, but you're no longer guaranteed "exclusive" profit off that work. To use an example: Dean Koontz wrote a couple of Frankenstein novels. Derivative works of Mary Shelly's novel set in modern times. For those who argue for perpetual copyrights, to be fair it should be retroactivated, which means Mary Shelly's descendants could sue Koontz, or at the very least be entitled to some licensing fee for work they themselves never did. And I wonder how Disney would feel, given most of their works are derivative themselves, and retroactive copy protection would allow all those copyrights holders to sue Disney for infringement, or at least force Disney to pay substantial licensing fees for works they refuse to fall into the public domain themselves."In the end copyright is a Good Thing, made with the best of intentions. We certainly should not throw it out as some anarchists who don't really understand the situation propose, but I think it does need a redesign so the actual creators profit from the work, not the labels and the RIAA. I totally disagree with their witch-hunt methods, but morally they are in the right place. Piracy is piracy, and no matter how much you try and justify it with bulls**t about 'the man' it'll remain a form of theft."I agree. I don't think copyright should be jettisoned altogether, merely returned to it's original intention and parameters. I can live with a short term "welfare" system, but like I said before, the more they try to turn it into a perpetual welfare system, the more poeple will simply ignore it. Nor should organization or corporation be able to force content owners to turn over the rights to their works permanently. The labels should be allowed to, at most, "lease" that copyright for a few year (3-5 years should be more than enough for them to recoup any investment they made) and then that copyright should automatically revert back to the "rightful" owner - the artist - to do with as they please.The above wasn't so much directed at you, iconwolf, but at the entire community that seems to think this type of crime is OK.I understand. I used to be very anti-filesharing and pro-copyright (and I still am to some extent) myself up until maybe 3-5 years ago. But as the industry has increasingly butchered and warped the original purposes and intent of the system it's become necessary to try to find ways to balance that deprivation out. I agree, on the whole, "stealing" content or copyright infringement isn't right, but neither is the what the entertainment industry it trying to do. There is no reason the rest of us should have our rights trampled because a small group feels their right are being trampled (or more importantly that they want to change the rules in the middle of the game so they can protect a steady profit margin).