Thanks ChodeMaster. Your picture above truly is worth 10,000 words.
[Link]
Little Puck Interview| Author | Post |
|---|---|
| duefuss Member Not a shred of evidence exists in favor of the idea that life is serious - Brendan Gill 723 Posts 4/09 |  Posted - Mar 5 2010 : 12:18AMThanks ChodeMaster. Your picture above truly is worth 10,000 words. [Link] |
| ChodeMasterJ Perpetual Marxist 5405 Posts 4/03 | Posted - Mar 5 2010 : 2:06AM [Link] |
| ILVBUTT Member Nice & Juicy! 925 Posts 9/09 | Posted - Mar 5 2010 : 2:26AM [Link] |
| cubesnake Senior Member 3858 Posts 10/02 | Posted - Mar 5 2010 : 4:37AM Cube [Link] |
| Zaer Deactivated User 249 Posts 10/07 | Posted - Mar 5 2010 : 7:39AM Edited by - Zaer on 3/5/2010 7:40:27 AM [Link] |
| duefuss Member Not a shred of evidence exists in favor of the idea that life is serious - Brendan Gill 723 Posts 4/09 | Posted - Mar 5 2010 : 12:44PM [Link] |
| duefuss Member Not a shred of evidence exists in favor of the idea that life is serious - Brendan Gill 723 Posts 4/09 | Posted - Mar 5 2010 : 1:10PM Coptright infringement takes many forms, such as plagirism and unauthorized publication. Since the media protected by copyright is not a physical entity like a chair or a car, it cannot, of course, BE physically stolen. However, if you present an idea at your work, let's say, to your boss for saving the company money, and he in turn presents that idea to his boss as his own, I assure you it will make you feel just as bad and deprive you just as certainly of any profit, as if your boss had burgled your house. Infringement of copyright is the theft of ideas, of thought and effort. They aren't 'things' but they are posessions surely, and taking them for your own use without appropriate compensation is STEALING, just like robbing a bank or sticking up a gas station. Your precious Supreme Court has made decisions on the parameters of what may be copyrighted and who may be accountable for infringement and so forth. It has never said that media: print, images, movies, TV, DVD, internet broadcast, etc. may be taken, shown, or used without the creator and/or rightful owner's permission or just compensation. Now you're gonna say that's not true. I don't suppose this time you could suprise me and also say WHY it's not true. [Link] |
| just_me Member 133 Posts 4/09 | Posted - Mar 5 2010 : 1:42PM Buy a camera and go create porn. Then personally upload your own work to every tube site, torrent site, filesharing host across the internet. Then come back and describe how great it made you feel to supply the others like yourself. Edited by - just_me on 3/5/2010 1:42:49 PM [Link] |
| hollywood woody Senior Member Death is caused by swallowing small amounts of saliva over a long period of time. George Carlin 1567 Posts 2/07 | Posted - Mar 5 2010 : 1:51PM what you're saying is completely correct. Unfortunately you are trying to convince someone who is in total denial. Here is the bottom line, plain and simple. A movie or a recording that has copyright protection is owned by the producer of said item. Without permission from that owner, uploading it to a share site is illegal. Period. Downloading it is illegal. Period. Why is it illegal? Because the person who uploaded it doesn't own it or have any rights to "share" it with the rest of the world. The person that downloaded it is also in violation of the law because they have no right to view it for free. Thus taking something that is not theirs, in other words stealing. Denying the rightful owner of compensation of said work. I have a solution to this problem. If you could put something on a DVD or CD that would create a virus in a computer the second someone tries to upload that disc onto a website, you would see these sites go away quick. I wonder if that could be done. Necessity is the mother of invention. [Link] |
| witling Member 46 Posts 1/07 | Posted - Mar 5 2010 : 2:40PM Personally I am more concerned about misguided copy protection measures that cause harm to legitimate users than anything else. When I put a DVD into the player I am subjected to endless warnings and messages and educational films about the evils of piracy or whatever, even though I have bought the disc quite legally. Fortunately my DVD player has an unofficial modified firmware that can bypass most of that crap. [Link] |
| Zaer Deactivated User 249 Posts 10/07 | Posted - Mar 5 2010 : 3:48PM Edited by - Zaer on 3/5/2010 3:48:52 PM [Link] |
| just_me Member 133 Posts 4/09 | Posted - Mar 5 2010 : 5:01PM [Link] |
| Zaer Deactivated User 249 Posts 10/07 | Posted - Mar 5 2010 : 5:10PM Furthermore, and this may be difficult to understand, there are people in this world who don't need the profit motive to compel them to create. Edited by - Zaer on 3/5/2010 5:11:46 PM [Link] |
| hollywood woody Senior Member Death is caused by swallowing small amounts of saliva over a long period of time. George Carlin 1567 Posts 2/07 | Posted - Mar 5 2010 : 5:24PM [Link] |
| charn fubar 2880 Posts 12/09 | Posted - Mar 5 2010 : 7:32PM [Link] |
Savoy  All-Star Member Sucker for Sinners 1844 Posts 12/06 | Posted - Mar 5 2010 : 7:48PM [Link] |
| qz3fwd Member 141 Posts 1/06 | Posted - Mar 5 2010 : 8:23PM I do agree with your/others statements to the effect "uploading content is infringment". I just feel no sympathy for the crybaby large content owners. [Link] |
| qz3fwd Member 141 Posts 1/06 | Posted - Mar 5 2010 : 8:30PM Yes-the threads can generate venom-I particularly have a sore spot with content owners constantly whining (some all the way to washington for protection from the public/consumers). At the end of the day-piracy will never go away-there is no solution. Stop whining and start innovating to maintain profitability is all I'm saying. Or alternatively-get out of the business. |
| duefuss Member Not a shred of evidence exists in favor of the idea that life is serious - Brendan Gill 723 Posts 4/09 | Posted - Mar 5 2010 : 9:22PM And for the umpteenth time, where are all these facts you say support your argument? If the Supreme Court decision dealing with copyright that puts the lie, as you say, to all I have contended is so easy to locate, why haven't YOU located it yet? What's its title? Give me a clue, O wise Zaer. Take pity on us poor mortals who, unlike you, must support what we say, not just say it -- over and over again -- with no reason, no authority. Be kind to us O Zaer, who, unlike your exalted self must read what others say before we can respond to it. [Link] |
| charn fubar 2880 Posts 12/09 | Posted - Mar 5 2010 : 9:55PM also the people who watch porn at work. Edited by - charn on 3/5/2010 10:47:21 PM [Link] |
| ninja1 Senior Member 2939 Posts 1/08 | Posted - Mar 6 2010 : 12:04AM [Link] |
| duefuss Member Not a shred of evidence exists in favor of the idea that life is serious - Brendan Gill 723 Posts 4/09 | Posted - Mar 6 2010 : 10:07AM [Link] |
| duefuss Member Not a shred of evidence exists in favor of the idea that life is serious - Brendan Gill 723 Posts 4/09 | Posted - Mar 6 2010 : 10:23AM For the record, there's nothing new about corporations stifling innovation, which they often mistake for competition. Detroit has a long and shameful history of opposing fuel economy innovations, and alternate energy sources such as electricity and hydrogen. I believe they actually bought a patent once so that it could not be used. These are facts, but you can't use them to justify stealing a car. And you can't use the media's resistance to inovation, even if it does exist, to justify stealing porn. [Link] |
| Zaer Deactivated User 249 Posts 10/07 | Posted - Mar 6 2010 : 12:03PM And furthermore, the problem with using such hyperbolic rhetoric such as calling everything that is mildly disagreeable to content owners that consumers do with their content as theft is that it cheapens the actual act of the theft of physical property and muddles the entire issue of copyright and makes it nearly impossible to deal with the subtleties of the issue in a rational fashion. Edited by - Zaer on 3/6/2010 12:06:52 PM [Link] |
| duefuss Member Not a shred of evidence exists in favor of the idea that life is serious - Brendan Gill 723 Posts 4/09 | Posted - Mar 8 2010 : 9:34AM Even if I'm just being too lazy to look it up myself, here, one would have thought you'd post a specific reference, just to shut me up. My guess is you looked it up yourself and realized there was nothing in any SC decision that can remotely be interpretted to allow the unauthorized uploading and downloading of copyrighted material. I HAVE looked, and I see nothing. Enlighten me, for if you cannot reference the specific point of law you have spoken of, it is an admission by you that it doesn't really exist at all.Once again, unless this country installed you as an absolute monarch over the weekend, saying it isn't theft doesn't change that it is, nor have you any authority to tell me what I do or do not know ABOUT MY OWN OPINION. If the RIAA's similar reasoning is so specious, how come they have won their suits and cease orders against uploaders and downloaders both? I'll certainly allow you to THINK it SHOULDN'T be illegal, but it is, and by any measure of fairness and justice, it ought to be.That you would call the statements in this very thread from producers, about the uncompensated viewing of their work 'mild disagreement' means you haven't read them, or, most likely, that, as usual, you think that you saying it makes it so. Calling piracy theft is not a hyperbole, it's a synonym. Copyright infringement has long been held as an act of theft. If your Supreme Court reference BTW is to Dowling v. U.S.A. (1985) even cursory reading of the opinion shows that that specific case was overturned because the charge brought against Dowling was the DISTRIBUTION accross state lines of Elvis Presley songs. The ruling overturned his conviction on the grounds that, since the songs were not physical objects, Dowling could not be convicted of a crime that referred to physical objects. The majority decision reads, in part:Nothing in the decision intimates that what Dowling did was not stealing, simply that it was not the stealing of physical property. The No electronic Theft Act of 1997 is the relevant law covering piracy. It remains in force, was never challenged on the basis of Dowling v. U.S. and, as you may note was enacted 12 years AFTER Dowling and uses the word 'theft' in its title. So if I am employing hyperbole and have "cheapen[ed] the actual act of the theft"(how you cheapen a crime is beyond me), so has the entire Legislative(who wrote the law), Executive (who signed the bill into law), and Judicial (who has frequently enforced the law) branches of our government. [Link] |
| Bluto Deactivated User 511 Posts 3/09 | Posted - Mar 8 2010 : 10:21AM |
| charn fubar 2880 Posts 12/09 | Posted - Mar 8 2010 : 6:12PM [Link] |
| duefuss Member Not a shred of evidence exists in favor of the idea that life is serious - Brendan Gill 723 Posts 4/09 | Posted - Mar 8 2010 : 8:25PM [Link] |
| Zaer Deactivated User 249 Posts 10/07 | Posted - Mar 9 2010 : 1:53AM And just as taping songs off the radio is legal, watching tube sites is legal as well.And you seem to be arguing that the viewing of this content in any way or setting should be compensated, which would represent a substantial departure from the current interpretation of copyright law. And such language is hyperbole, and your attempt to use Merriam Webster to buttress your argument actually undermines it as the first definition of theft states: 1 a : the act of stealing; specifically : the felonious taking and removing of personal property with intent to deprive the rightful owner of it. And with copyright infringement, as is understood, there isn't any deprivation of personal property as the original owner retains the original data ergo there isn't any appropriation of property.Of course, because it's not physical property.It's unsurprising that The NET Act has the word theft in the title as it was virtually written by the entertainment industry, which traditionally uses inaccurate and hyperbolic language in an attempt to further their goals which they still can't attain primarily because the public largely opposes their policies. And crimes can obviously be cheapened. For example by calling every copyright issue that is mildly disagreeable to certain factions theft one makes a mockery of actual serious cases of copyright violations. Edited by - Zaer on 3/9/2010 1:54:29 AM [Link] |
| duefuss Member Not a shred of evidence exists in favor of the idea that life is serious - Brendan Gill 723 Posts 4/09 | Posted - Mar 9 2010 : 11:33AM I cite references and quotations to support my views, explain why I have them and refer to laws specifically supporting them. To which you either blithely reply that I am wrong, period, make unsupported statements of fact, or ignore it, presumably because what I say is so patently obvious that even YOU haven't the hubris to deny it. When, for example, did "taping songs off the radio" come up? And, if the use of radio broadcasts without compensation is so legal, why, several years back, were commercial establishments required to stop playing radio stations over their store speakers? So, when you extrapolate that "... just as taping songs off the radio is legal, watching tube sites is legal as well," you're right, only in the sense that one is AS legal as the other, because both are against the law. Because a cop doesn't show up at your door and clap the cuffs on, doesn't mean you aren't breaking the law. Because someone hasn't the means or chooses not to prosecute a crime does not mean that it isn't one.You take my breath away! Is it supposed to be immoral or unfair that the entertainment industry works for a law that protects its right to be compensated for its product? What's inaccurate or hyperbolic about that? I love that you say downloading isn't theft, and state flatly that the law backs you up, but, when I cite chapter and verse in the criminal code saying that it IS theft, suddenly the law, which is sacred authority when you claim it agrees with you, now becomes the irrelevant dupe of the entertainment industry! When confronted by plain proof that downloading is theft, suddenly we're only "watching tube sites." Mr. South, above has plainly and well explained already that just watching is just as bad.Of course, because it's not physical property. Click to expand The thrust of the Dowling decision(I presume that's the one you said was so easy to find. Of course to say so, you'd have to admit I was right about something, and you've apparently vowed never to do that) was not that Dowling had not committed a crime, but that he had been charged with a crime he did not commit. The law under which he was charged referred to physical property, and the property taken was not physical, therefore he was innocent OF THE CHARGE. But what he took WAS property, and it WAS stolen. The SC decision merely cited the need to accurately specify what was stolen and how. You keep limping along with that nonsense that "it's not stealing, it's copyright infringement" as if being different words makes them different things.The only other provision making it a crime is that it be done "“willfully and for purposes of commercial advantage or private financial gain.” If saving the price of a DVD, site membership, or VOD minutes isn't financial gain, what is it? And unless someone's tied you to your chair and hits the download button while you struggle futilely to stop him, it's willful. Where you get that THAT is not ": the felonious taking and removing of personal property with intent to deprive the rightful owner of it" I don't know. You are not taking his DVD or his movie from him, per se, but you sure as hell are taking the money he is entitled to have for that movie and THAT's physical property and THAT's stealing. And there's nothing hyperbolic about it either. And I didn't "... attempt to use Merriam Webster to buttress [my] argument," I DID use it. [Link] |
| hollywood woody Senior Member Death is caused by swallowing small amounts of saliva over a long period of time. George Carlin 1567 Posts 2/07 | Posted - Mar 9 2010 : 12:54PM Huh? [Link] |
| Clam Digger Deactivated User Many a man fails as an original thinker simply because his memory is too good. 2268 Posts 1/05 | Posted - Mar 9 2010 : 3:51PM [Link] |
| charn fubar 2880 Posts 12/09 | Posted - Mar 9 2010 : 4:56PM [Link] |
| mapofhawaii Senior Member 1050 Posts 3/06 | Posted - Mar 9 2010 : 6:38PM It's stealing No, it's not Is too Is not Says who Says me Who else That guy Whatever Whatever [Link] |
| duefuss Member Not a shred of evidence exists in favor of the idea that life is serious - Brendan Gill 723 Posts 4/09 | Posted - Mar 9 2010 : 6:43PM True. All too true. Somehow, though, it seems like it was a hell of a lot more writing than that. [Link] |
| ChodeMasterJ Perpetual Marxist 5405 Posts 4/03 | Posted - Mar 9 2010 : 10:45PM [Image not found DB] [Image not found DB] [Link] |
| Zaer Deactivated User 249 Posts 10/07 | Posted - Mar 10 2010 : 12:38AM And taping songs off the radio is legal. As for stores playing the radio, lawsuits have been brought against some of them to force them to compensate the music industry, which is also absurd as they've already been compensated by the radio stations. Another example of the avarice which is at the root of much of this behavior.Both are legal.This alleged "right" you speak of largely didn't exist before the 18th Century, it was created whole cloth from a subjective interpretation of reality based on a particular world view, rooted in avarice, from certain factions within society. And as we have seen this situation has become ever more absurd as time has elapsed.And Mr South is wrong. Watching tube sites just as taping songs off the radio is legal. Otherwise virtually everyone in the USA broke the law including record executives themselves who made the illogical claim years ago. And it's not suddenly anything because just as watching tube sites is legal, downloading copyrighted material isn't theft. And this has been said numerous times already and despite using a flawed law that was put in place by the entertainment industry, to buttress your argument, it's still not theft as no deprivation of property occurs. And using laws as "proof" of anything is a flawed rhetorical technique. Primarily because in many cases their creation and enforcement is rooted in beliefs not objective reality.Well if you could prove that it's depriving the original owner of property then it would be, but since you can't, because it's not, then it's just copyright infringement.The word attempted is used because instead of the Merriam Webster definition buttressing your argument it instead undermined it as the deprivation of property doesn't occur ergo it's not what you believe it to be. [Link] |
| BlackSix All-Star Member pornography wasn't sex but fantasies of an impossibly hospitable world 12377 Posts 9/07 | Posted - Mar 10 2010 : 3:37AM I would agree it is less about the people who watch the tube sites, if something is presented free most people will take it, but the tubesite owners are stealing their content. The claim that they are just a conduit for uploads etc was already knocked down in the Pirate Bay case, and besides that is largely a fiction, most of the uploads on those sites are done by a few site admins, a lot of the same material is recycled from site to site as well. [Link] |
| BlackSix All-Star Member pornography wasn't sex but fantasies of an impossibly hospitable world 12377 Posts 9/07 | Posted - Mar 10 2010 : 3:42AM [Link] |
| mharris127 Senior Member 1844 Posts 8/09 | Posted - Mar 10 2010 : 5:38AM The flaw in your argument here is that radio stations have to pay an annual royalty fee to broadcast the music they play, the tubesites are paying no one for the content they are streaming. BTW in most countries radio stations also pay an extra fee for streaming their content. [/quote] Radio stations pay to use music? Since when???? Records used to be pushed on radio stations to generate publicity, sometimes producers even paid radio stations to play their music (remember the payola scandal of the 70's). [Link] |
| Zaer Deactivated User 249 Posts 10/07 | Posted - Mar 10 2010 : 7:20AM Ergo the tube sites would need to pay the content owners, not the viewers so as previously established taping songs off the radio is legal and watching tube sites is legal. [Link] |
| duefuss Member Not a shred of evidence exists in favor of the idea that life is serious - Brendan Gill 723 Posts 4/09 | Posted - Mar 10 2010 : 8:46AM Mapofhawaii is right. This discussion was from the first a verbal tennis match of "Yes it is. No it isn't." Zaer began by citing a mysterious Supreme Court decision and unspeciified 'coyright infringement' to suppoert a stance that piracy and free downloading were ethically and legally justified. Presented with black letter law that they are not, he now says the the law is unjust and corrupt, and he continues to state 'facts' whose only authority is his pontifical statement of them. In mapofhawaii's own words, "Whatever." I could go on answering Zaer and his cohort, but I and others have said about all there is to say about it, and long ago began repeating ourselves. In the end, the law is clear and fair: depriving the maker or owner of entertainment media of revenue by uploading or downloading his material is a form of theft -- stealing. ALL of the argument contrary to that reality changes nothing. People will go on doing it and if they think about it at all go on rationalizing that it doesn't hurt anybody or porn makers make billions so they deserve to be ripped off or it isn't stealing it's just watching or the laws against it are corrupt and unjust, or what they will. Before long, I believe the porn makers will have no choice but to crack down on piracy. Their reluctance to do so is understandable, given that, for one of many reasons, publicity calls attention to the industry that could have some very unwanted consequences. But those consequences COULD happen anyway and are far more likely to if unrestricted, ubiquitous, and free porn of every sort continues to proliferate on the 'net. I anticipate one of two eventualities. Either the industry as a whole will mount a concerted effort to end this proliferation, or the Congress will. The latter possibility will not please any of us. Certainly there are arguments against these eventualities, some of which have been made in this thread already, but those arguments strike me as being more wishful thinking than anything else. At any rate, argue on folks. It's a lot of fun to read, but I for one have said all I have to say. [Link] |
| hollywood woody Senior Member Death is caused by swallowing small amounts of saliva over a long period of time. George Carlin 1567 Posts 2/07 | Posted - Mar 10 2010 : 12:55PM Zaer nice try. End result: the producers own the content. the content is uploaded to a torrent by someone who bought a DVD, not the owner of the content. The content is viewed illegally by people to cheap to pay for their pleasure. The producers are losing money from pirated content. The pirates don't care. The producers will start going out of business and refuse to produce content for no money, no profit, no business. It's all fun and games until someone gets hurt, then it's just hilarious. [Link] |
| Aplus Senior Member 1431 Posts 5/05 | Posted - Mar 10 2010 : 2:01PM [Link] |
| hollywood woody Senior Member Death is caused by swallowing small amounts of saliva over a long period of time. George Carlin 1567 Posts 2/07 | Posted - Mar 10 2010 : 7:02PM Don't think it can't happen either, it can. The cool thing about the government is you never know when they just might decide to strike. They could have a open investigation going on right now. Can they find your IP address, you bet they can. I was in Florida about a year ago, one of the big online sites and producers of porn, which will remain nameless, has a big 60 inch screen, on that screen is a map of the world. They can see who is logged into every one of their sites. They can zero in on a certain state, city, street and right down to the IP address and tell you the actual address. This is a PORN company that does this. Do you think the government has better technology, you bet they do. Will they use it, you bet they will. I would go as far to say that they already are. If this company in Florida can tell you when you logged on and off, how many times and for how long you have been using their sites, what kind of movies or sites you watch, the good old US Feds can and will do the same. [Link] |
| Johnothan Pedak Senior Member Catastrophe 1594 Posts 6/07 | Posted - Mar 10 2010 : 7:04PM Edited by - Johnothan Pedak on 3/10/2010 7:05:00 PM [Link] |
| duefuss Member Not a shred of evidence exists in favor of the idea that life is serious - Brendan Gill 723 Posts 4/09 | Posted - Mar 10 2010 : 8:50PM See Mike South's reply to this on page 9. Like I said, all the questions have been answered. [Link] |
| Johnothan Pedak Senior Member Catastrophe 1594 Posts 6/07 | Posted - Mar 10 2010 : 8:59PM [Link] |
| Aplus Senior Member 1431 Posts 5/05 | Posted - Mar 10 2010 : 9:37PM [Link] |
| Clam Digger Deactivated User Many a man fails as an original thinker simply because his memory is too good. 2268 Posts 1/05 | Posted - Mar 10 2010 : 9:53PM [Link] |
| Use the code below to link to this topic or a specific post. |
| URL of this thread |
| Link to this post with HTML |
| Link to this post with Forum Code |