How to foil the RIAA

[avsdotcom]

Originally posted by jonifen
so using that theory, you'd be stealing MONEY, not the CD which everyone seems to think it is.


No, you're stealing somebody's intellectual property . You're just making flimsy excuses up to try and justify stealing.
Just because you've downloaded ,say, an album - then obviously you're not stealing a cd ,but it does not change the fact that you are still STEALING.

 

[2z]

Originally posted by gonaads

Digital Millennium Copyright Act is nothing but a ploy for the RIAA to impose it's will on every aspect of the Industry.

Oh your just upset that the RIAA have found a loop hole in the American way of life
after all 53% of Americans cant be wrong ?

I'm not arguing with you all if thats the way you think about copyright theft

while your subpoena is being served
I will buying new a new PC with the juicy kick-back from the powers that be

 

[jonifen]

Originally posted by avsdotcom
No, you're stealing somebody's intellectual property . You're just making flimsy excuses up to try and justify stealing.
Just because you've downloaded ,say, an album - then obviously you're not stealing a cd ,but it does not change the fact that you are still STEALING.

im a bit confused as to your ability to read... I quote:

Originally posted by jonifen
Thats the point I was trying to make (thx for indirectly putting what I was saying into clearer words Gonaads ) - I wasnt trying to justify why people download music, nor was I saying its right, but I was simply saying, its not actually stealing.

I take it you didnt see whats underlined?

Originally posted by jonifen
I've never said downloading music is the right thing to do. I download music, and if I like it, I buy it (call it try before you buy). If I dont like it, I delete it from my computer... no need in keeping stuff I'm not gonna use.

underlined again.

I aint tryin to justify anything m8... I'm tryin to put across the point that if you steal something, the original owner CANNOT use it themselves. Just like gonaads said... if you stole a car, then the original owner cannot use it. If you stole a mobile phone from a shop, the shop can no longer sell it, nor could it get used by anyone etc etc... I could go on but I wont.

I make a point about that its not stealing music, its an "infringement of copyright" - nothing more, nothing less... the outcome of infringing copyright is that the artist loses royalty MONEY (they dont lose the ability to bang their newly released CD in their CD player and listen to it), they just lose money... nothing more, nothing less.

I could keep going on making the same point, but its obvious nobody is likely to read it as it has been typed (i.e. as it is full stop)... think about it for one minute ay?

 

[Tabula Rasa]

oh dear...
couldn't see this coming

 

[jonifen]

Originally posted by Benny
oh dear...
couldn't see this coming

aye... a lot of people have one view on everything in their mind and rush into conversations blasting out their view as if its the be-all and end-all, no differences allowed. It's just disappointing when people do that though as from the first comment on it, nobody else reads the people's posts who have a valid point... just a shame tbh :/

might be worth a mod lockin this up, as the original post has been dealt with...

 

[avsdotcom]

Originally posted by jonifen
im a bit confused as to your ability to read... I quote:



I take it you didnt see whats underlined?



underlined again.

I aint tryin to justify anything m8... I'm tryin to put across the point that if you steal something, the original owner CANNOT use it themselves. Just like gonaads said... if you stole a car, then the original owner cannot use it. If you stole a mobile phone from a shop, the shop can no longer sell it, nor could it get used by anyone etc etc... I could go on but I wont.

I make a point about that its not stealing music, its an "infringement of copyright" - nothing more, nothing less... the outcome of infringing copyright is that the artist loses royalty MONEY (they dont lose the ability to bang their newly released CD in their CD player and listen to it), they just lose money... nothing more, nothing less.

I could keep going on making the same point, but its obvious nobody is likely to read it as it has been typed (i.e. as it is full stop)... think about it for one minute ay?

Absolute tosh I'm afraid. To steal something does not mean that you have to deprive the owner of it. If someone managed to steal your credit card details, they have stolen something from you but it doesn't stop you still using it , does it ?
Similarly, if someone nicks your girlfriend, doesn't stop you from boning her now does it ?

Yes, it is an infringement of copyright law to download music, movies, etc - but it is also still stealing. You have downloaded something which you have not paid for, which you do not own. That music track, album, movie or whatever is the intellectual property of some other person/company.

Ok, I understand that you're not trying to justify it, and I aint saying I'm some angel that has no mp3's,DivX movies,bins,iso's,avi's,etc on my hard drive - but the fact is, downloading commercially available media is theft.

If you don't believe me, try arguing your case in court

 

[Petros]

I think the conclusion can be summed up in one sentence:

Downloading MP3s is not theft, but is illegal at the moment.

The same can be applied to drunk driving...not theft, but illegal at the moment.

It's annoying that the RIAA wants to call copyright infringement "theft". What should we rename "theft" to, then? "Murder"?

How's that for oversimplification?

 

[Tabula Rasa]

oh... btw.
Its not illegal because it is "theft", don't thing anyone ever said it was... it is illegal because it is a breach of the copyrights.
Not by the person who is actually downloading the music, but by the person who the music is being downloaded from.

 

[jonifen]

I see your point... but a few comments...

Originally posted by avsdotcom
If someone managed to steal your credit card details, they have stolen something from you but it doesn't stop you still using it , does it ?

they steal your money with credit card details - nothing else tbh.

Originally posted by avsdotcom
Similarly, if someone nicks your girlfriend, doesn't stop you from boning her now does it ?

nobody "owns" their girlfriend in the first place tbh

Originally posted by avsdotcom
If you don't believe me, try arguing your case in court

you'd get done for violating copyright law... not for theft.

Originally posted by HandyBuddy
Downloading MP3s is not theft, but is illegal at the moment.

aye, I shoulda jus said that tbh

Originally posted by Benny
oh... btw.
Its not illegal because it is "theft", don't thing anyone ever said it was... it is illegal because it is a breach of the copyrights.
Not by the person who is actually downloading the music, but by the person who the music is being downloaded from.

stealing == theft
i.e. people who said "stealing" or "stole" are actually saying "thieving" and "theft". Yeah, it is the person who supplies the mp3s that is more wrong than the person who receives them... neither is in the right though.


And one final point from me... I wonder how many people here has never violated the copyright laws at anytime in their lives

 

[2z]

Originally posted by jonifen
might be worth a mod lockin this up, as the original post has been dealt with...

how do you work that out ?

Originally posted by HandyBuddy
What do you think?

we a difference of opinions on the subject which makes for a really good thread
the topic stays open

Originally posted by HandyBuddy
I think the conclusion can be summed up in one sentence:

Downloading MP3s is not theft, but is illegal at the moment.

The same can be applied to drunk driving...not theft, but illegal at the moment.

It's annoying that the RIAA wants to call copyright infringement "theft". What should we rename "theft" to, then? "Murder"?

How's that for oversimplification?

duh

drunk driving is driving while under the influence of alcohol
murder is taking someones life
downloading copyrighted music is stealing
simple enough for you ?

for example
a while back in my home town Bolton
we had a problem with car theft ~ Bolton was the car crime capital of Europe
these thieves where getting away it ~ why ?
because they said they intended to take the car back, they just fancied a drive of it
that was labeled joy riding
as a result the law was changed
now its called taking without consent
and carries the same sentence as actual theft ~ why ?
because its just plain stealing

the same principle has happened with copyrighted digital media
the law has been changed to plug a loop hole
Digital Millennium Copyright Act ~ why ?
because millions of internet users are stealing

 

[jonifen]

we could go on like this forever tbh

edit: unless thats the idea to get people's post counts up?

the original post asked if a cd audio file (at 1411kbps) was ripped at 192kbps, then is it not against copyright law as its only a percentage of the original - the next post (or the one after that) said no - i.e. post answered

 

[2z]

Originally posted by jonifen
we could go on like this forever tbh

I don't think so ~ forever is such a long time

/me thinks your post was like the others

over simplified

 

[jonifen]

lol

 

[thebear]

well, here is my problem...I want the song Still Dre by Dr. Dre, and only that song. I have 3 options - buy the entire CD for $24, buy the legit mp3 for $1.29, or download off Kazaa. I know for sure I won't buy the cd, which leaves me with the two downloading options. Now, it was recently found that the legit downloading brings absolutley no revenue to the artist, the record labels are in fact not paying them...so I can feed the RIAA but not the artists, or starve both the RIAA and the artist. To be honest, I have really started to dislike the RIAA due to the way they are handling this - literally treating most of their customers like common criminals - so what am I gonna do? Keep my $1.29 and use Kazaa.

(on a side note...why don't artists say f*** you to the labels and start publishing their own music on the internet?)

 

[jonifen]

Originally posted by thebear
well, here is my problem...I want the song Still Dre by Dr. Dre, and only that song. I have 3 options - buy the entire CD for $24, buy the legit mp3 for $1.29, or download off Kazaa. I know for sure I won't buy the cd, which leaves me with the two downloading options. Now, it was recently found that the legit downloading brings absolutley no revenue to the artist, the record labels are in fact not paying them...so I can feed the RIAA but not the artists, or starve both the RIAA and the artist. To be honest, I have really started to dislike the RIAA due to the way they are handling this - literally treating most of their customers like common criminals - so what am I gonna do? Keep my $1.29 and use Kazaa.

(on a side note...why don't artists say f*** you to the labels and start publishing their own music on the internet?)

nice point there.
I'd certainly buy music off the internet if the artist was guaranteed more money from it. I think its terrible when to get one single song, the only option that would benefit the artist is to buy the album, which are overpriced imo. I dont see why it should cost like 4 quid more to get an album on CD than on a cassette tape, when it costs the artist no more money or work to get it onto different medium. CDs are like 20p or less nowadays... pressing them in bulk would make them cheaper - why not make tapes and cds the same price? Might sell more then.

 

[Tabula Rasa]

Or you can buy the single for less then 5$

 

[jonifen]

Originally posted by Benny
Or you can buy the single for less then 5$

if its still available for sale? Still DRE is quite an old track... I wouldnt be sure if its still available?

 

[Tabula Rasa]

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/B00004RDYC/103-3256534-9828617?vi=glance

Still D.R.E and forgot about dre each in 2 versions for 4.99 available on amazon.com

stop making excuses god dammit!

 

[jonifen]

but its $1.29 for the mp3, but the artist doesnt get any of that - so people would spend more money just to line another 3 people's pockets (the artist'll get bout 20c lol).

I see what you mean... I used Still DRE as the example as the person above me had too (hmm, the thread is almost a different one ). Its close to the emulators and roms thing... you cant buy super mario for the NES from anywhere where the original maker would benefit... would that be close to buying older songs (70s - 80s)? Or are u gonna prove me wrong and find them on Amazon too?

$4.99 is awfully expensive for one song though - should make em cheaper tbh

 

[Tabula Rasa]

just saying...
there is no "excuse" for downloading MP3, and i hate when people try to excuse it.
but its not like i don't do it, i just acknowledge the fact that what i'm doing is wrong.