Re: [Full-disclosure] when did piracy/theft become expression of freedom
On Sun, Jan 29, 2012 at 01:55:31AM +0100, Christian Sciberras wrote: Actually, *most* bands that make money do so off the concert tours - tickets and tshirts is where the actual money is at, not the album sales. So why bother with album sales in the first place? This is the same with free/commercial software. At the end of the day the creator decides the sales strategy. The only thing I can see in this is that the recording industry really needs to grow up to the times, but piracy is not a solution nor the means to one, just like DDoSing facebook is not the means to the removal of a certain bill/law (arguably, to the contrary). The recording companies have every right to retaliate just as the FBI has every right to arrest suspects involved in these childish acts. Just a quote: quote In Germany they first came for the Communists, and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Communist. Then they came for the Jews, and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Jew. Then they came for the trade unionists, and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a trade unionist. Then they came for the Catholics, and I didn't speak up because I was a Protestant. Then they came for me - and by that time no one was left to speak up. Martin_Niemöller /quote https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Martin_Niem%C3%B6ller -- j ___ Full-Disclosure - We believe in it. Charter: http://lists.grok.org.uk/full-disclosure-charter.html Hosted and sponsored by Secunia - http://secunia.com/
Re: [Full-disclosure] when did piracy/theft become expression of freedom
No, it follows the fact that vengeance (the fuck you Byron mentioned) isn't fruitful to remedy the situation. On Mon, Jan 30, 2012 at 8:54 AM, Mike Hale eyeronic.des...@gmail.comwrote: What you said doesn't follow. Making a digital copy isn't burning down a business. The analogy linking 'piracy' with theft is ludicrous. On Sun, Jan 29, 2012 at 11:50 PM, Christian Sciberras uuf6...@gmail.com wrote: Byron, you don't protest to the government by burning down 100-year-old business, if you know what I mean... On Mon, Jan 30, 2012 at 12:12 AM, Byron L. Sonne byron.so...@gmail.com wrote: The thing that makes me laugh about all of this, and one of the key things I learned from reading Gibbon's Decline Fall is this: The number and frequency of laws passed regarding things directly relates to how widespread these things are, and how they much the laws are ignored and ineffective. Laws can't prevent a damn thing, they can only specify remedies. As it is said, it's only illegal if you get caught. The cat is out of the bag and will never be put back in. There's no way to stop people from 'illegally' copying copyrighted material. If they somehow managed to require and implement tech so that perfect digital copies can't be made (unlikely) then people will simply use a camera to record the video as it plays on the screen. Hey, wait a minute, that sounds just like that screener I downloaded someone taped in Russia! ;) If they manage to require and implement tech so that you can't trade it over the internet (unlikely) then people will simply trade it on private networks or, like we used to do in the old days, via sneakernet. The problem is that in an attempt to control the dissemination of copyrighted material (and people are right, artists do have a right to reap the benefits of their effort) the powers-that-be are stepping over the line and into territory that impacts our ability to communicate in the fashion we choose. It might be fine to try and prevent piracy but in the process of doing so you are trashing the other desires of people that have nothing to do with piracy. I'm sure if the copyright lobby had their way, they'd require us to wear special glasses in order to see our laptop screens, on the assumption that anything not explicitly licensed was assumed to be unlicensed, and thus pirated, which we would be blocked from our field of view... and as a result, some girl/guy who wants to write a simple freeware text editor now has to jump through regulatory hoops and spend money to obtain a special registration that allows their text editor to display to the screen. This is a cheesy example, but I think it makes the point. In the guise of 'protecting artists and businesses' what is happening is that the powers-that-be are requesting (and too often getting) powers that allow them to trample on the general idea of freedom of communications and other things people cherish. As a result, people are inclined to engage in the very behaviours that elicited the laws and crackdowns, quite simply, as a way to raise their middle finger and say Fuck You. This is when piracy and theft becomes freedom of expression - when it's done in protest. -- http://www.freebyron.org ___ Full-Disclosure - We believe in it. Charter: http://lists.grok.org.uk/full-disclosure-charter.html Hosted and sponsored by Secunia - http://secunia.com/ ___ Full-Disclosure - We believe in it. Charter: http://lists.grok.org.uk/full-disclosure-charter.html Hosted and sponsored by Secunia - http://secunia.com/ -- 09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0 ___ Full-Disclosure - We believe in it. Charter: http://lists.grok.org.uk/full-disclosure-charter.html Hosted and sponsored by Secunia - http://secunia.com/
Re: [Full-disclosure] when did piracy/theft become expression of freedom
Not necessarily. Look at the effects of people posting DeCSS and the HDDVD keys a while back. The industry ended up giving in precisely because people said, en masse, fuck off. On Mon, Jan 30, 2012 at 12:05 AM, Christian Sciberras uuf6...@gmail.com wrote: No, it follows the fact that vengeance (the fuck you Byron mentioned) isn't fruitful to remedy the situation. On Mon, Jan 30, 2012 at 8:54 AM, Mike Hale eyeronic.des...@gmail.com wrote: What you said doesn't follow. Making a digital copy isn't burning down a business. The analogy linking 'piracy' with theft is ludicrous. On Sun, Jan 29, 2012 at 11:50 PM, Christian Sciberras uuf6...@gmail.com wrote: Byron, you don't protest to the government by burning down 100-year-old business, if you know what I mean... On Mon, Jan 30, 2012 at 12:12 AM, Byron L. Sonne byron.so...@gmail.com wrote: The thing that makes me laugh about all of this, and one of the key things I learned from reading Gibbon's Decline Fall is this: The number and frequency of laws passed regarding things directly relates to how widespread these things are, and how they much the laws are ignored and ineffective. Laws can't prevent a damn thing, they can only specify remedies. As it is said, it's only illegal if you get caught. The cat is out of the bag and will never be put back in. There's no way to stop people from 'illegally' copying copyrighted material. If they somehow managed to require and implement tech so that perfect digital copies can't be made (unlikely) then people will simply use a camera to record the video as it plays on the screen. Hey, wait a minute, that sounds just like that screener I downloaded someone taped in Russia! ;) If they manage to require and implement tech so that you can't trade it over the internet (unlikely) then people will simply trade it on private networks or, like we used to do in the old days, via sneakernet. The problem is that in an attempt to control the dissemination of copyrighted material (and people are right, artists do have a right to reap the benefits of their effort) the powers-that-be are stepping over the line and into territory that impacts our ability to communicate in the fashion we choose. It might be fine to try and prevent piracy but in the process of doing so you are trashing the other desires of people that have nothing to do with piracy. I'm sure if the copyright lobby had their way, they'd require us to wear special glasses in order to see our laptop screens, on the assumption that anything not explicitly licensed was assumed to be unlicensed, and thus pirated, which we would be blocked from our field of view... and as a result, some girl/guy who wants to write a simple freeware text editor now has to jump through regulatory hoops and spend money to obtain a special registration that allows their text editor to display to the screen. This is a cheesy example, but I think it makes the point. In the guise of 'protecting artists and businesses' what is happening is that the powers-that-be are requesting (and too often getting) powers that allow them to trample on the general idea of freedom of communications and other things people cherish. As a result, people are inclined to engage in the very behaviours that elicited the laws and crackdowns, quite simply, as a way to raise their middle finger and say Fuck You. This is when piracy and theft becomes freedom of expression - when it's done in protest. -- http://www.freebyron.org ___ Full-Disclosure - We believe in it. Charter: http://lists.grok.org.uk/full-disclosure-charter.html Hosted and sponsored by Secunia - http://secunia.com/ ___ Full-Disclosure - We believe in it. Charter: http://lists.grok.org.uk/full-disclosure-charter.html Hosted and sponsored by Secunia - http://secunia.com/ -- 09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0 -- 09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0 ___ Full-Disclosure - We believe in it. Charter: http://lists.grok.org.uk/full-disclosure-charter.html Hosted and sponsored by Secunia - http://secunia.com/
Re: [Full-disclosure] when did piracy/theft become expression of freedom
Uhm, that was a ridiculous situation anyway (@illegal primes). So lets leave it at 'not necessarily'. On Mon, Jan 30, 2012 at 9:08 AM, Mike Hale eyeronic.des...@gmail.comwrote: Not necessarily. Look at the effects of people posting DeCSS and the HDDVD keys a while back. The industry ended up giving in precisely because people said, en masse, fuck off. On Mon, Jan 30, 2012 at 12:05 AM, Christian Sciberras uuf6...@gmail.com wrote: No, it follows the fact that vengeance (the fuck you Byron mentioned) isn't fruitful to remedy the situation. On Mon, Jan 30, 2012 at 8:54 AM, Mike Hale eyeronic.des...@gmail.com wrote: What you said doesn't follow. Making a digital copy isn't burning down a business. The analogy linking 'piracy' with theft is ludicrous. On Sun, Jan 29, 2012 at 11:50 PM, Christian Sciberras uuf6...@gmail.com wrote: Byron, you don't protest to the government by burning down 100-year-old business, if you know what I mean... On Mon, Jan 30, 2012 at 12:12 AM, Byron L. Sonne byron.so...@gmail.com wrote: The thing that makes me laugh about all of this, and one of the key things I learned from reading Gibbon's Decline Fall is this: The number and frequency of laws passed regarding things directly relates to how widespread these things are, and how they much the laws are ignored and ineffective. Laws can't prevent a damn thing, they can only specify remedies. As it is said, it's only illegal if you get caught. The cat is out of the bag and will never be put back in. There's no way to stop people from 'illegally' copying copyrighted material. If they somehow managed to require and implement tech so that perfect digital copies can't be made (unlikely) then people will simply use a camera to record the video as it plays on the screen. Hey, wait a minute, that sounds just like that screener I downloaded someone taped in Russia! ;) If they manage to require and implement tech so that you can't trade it over the internet (unlikely) then people will simply trade it on private networks or, like we used to do in the old days, via sneakernet. The problem is that in an attempt to control the dissemination of copyrighted material (and people are right, artists do have a right to reap the benefits of their effort) the powers-that-be are stepping over the line and into territory that impacts our ability to communicate in the fashion we choose. It might be fine to try and prevent piracy but in the process of doing so you are trashing the other desires of people that have nothing to do with piracy. I'm sure if the copyright lobby had their way, they'd require us to wear special glasses in order to see our laptop screens, on the assumption that anything not explicitly licensed was assumed to be unlicensed, and thus pirated, which we would be blocked from our field of view... and as a result, some girl/guy who wants to write a simple freeware text editor now has to jump through regulatory hoops and spend money to obtain a special registration that allows their text editor to display to the screen. This is a cheesy example, but I think it makes the point. In the guise of 'protecting artists and businesses' what is happening is that the powers-that-be are requesting (and too often getting) powers that allow them to trample on the general idea of freedom of communications and other things people cherish. As a result, people are inclined to engage in the very behaviours that elicited the laws and crackdowns, quite simply, as a way to raise their middle finger and say Fuck You. This is when piracy and theft becomes freedom of expression - when it's done in protest. -- http://www.freebyron.org ___ Full-Disclosure - We believe in it. Charter: http://lists.grok.org.uk/full-disclosure-charter.html Hosted and sponsored by Secunia - http://secunia.com/ ___ Full-Disclosure - We believe in it. Charter: http://lists.grok.org.uk/full-disclosure-charter.html Hosted and sponsored by Secunia - http://secunia.com/ -- 09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0 -- 09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0 ___ Full-Disclosure - We believe in it. Charter: http://lists.grok.org.uk/full-disclosure-charter.html Hosted and sponsored by Secunia - http://secunia.com/
Re: [Full-disclosure] when did piracy/theft become expression of freedom
Just to be clear, what's been done in the name of intellectual property protection is fucking ridiculous. I just do not see how getting something someone put a non-zero value of work and materials into without even so much as asking or being given permission from the person who made it is somehow not even at the very least disrespectful. Even if it is just a reproduction, it took effort to create, and you must figure it's worth something or you wouldn't have expended the effort to reproduce it to begin with. (Fair use being the main exception there, but fair use usually implies something distinctive being done to the work, too, as opposed to minor editing/shitty encoding. Feel free to correct!) To be honest and realistic, nothing can ever be done to stop copying. Ever. Nor should it. I'm just saying I consider there's no harm in it to be a myth in most cases. At the core of it, I think copyright's a totally valid thing to have, if only to stop plagiarism. Its implementation, however... (I don't see my stance changing in the near future, either. I'm sorry, I'm kind of rigid in that line of thought and I haven't heard or read anything yet to adequately address everything.) Anyway; back to lurking for me. :) On Jan 30, 2012 12:17 AM, Christian Sciberras uuf6...@gmail.com wrote: Uhm, that was a ridiculous situation anyway (@illegal primes). So lets leave it at 'not necessarily'. On Mon, Jan 30, 2012 at 9:08 AM, Mike Hale eyeronic.des...@gmail.comwrote: Not necessarily. Look at the effects of people posting DeCSS and the HDDVD keys a while back. The industry ended up giving in precisely because people said, en masse, fuck off. On Mon, Jan 30, 2012 at 12:05 AM, Christian Sciberras uuf6...@gmail.com wrote: No, it follows the fact that vengeance (the fuck you Byron mentioned) isn't fruitful to remedy the situation. On Mon, Jan 30, 2012 at 8:54 AM, Mike Hale eyeronic.des...@gmail.com wrote: What you said doesn't follow. Making a digital copy isn't burning down a business. The analogy linking 'piracy' with theft is ludicrous. On Sun, Jan 29, 2012 at 11:50 PM, Christian Sciberras uuf6...@gmail.com wrote: Byron, you don't protest to the government by burning down 100-year-old business, if you know what I mean... On Mon, Jan 30, 2012 at 12:12 AM, Byron L. Sonne byron.so...@gmail.com wrote: The thing that makes me laugh about all of this, and one of the key things I learned from reading Gibbon's Decline Fall is this: The number and frequency of laws passed regarding things directly relates to how widespread these things are, and how they much the laws are ignored and ineffective. Laws can't prevent a damn thing, they can only specify remedies. As it is said, it's only illegal if you get caught. The cat is out of the bag and will never be put back in. There's no way to stop people from 'illegally' copying copyrighted material. If they somehow managed to require and implement tech so that perfect digital copies can't be made (unlikely) then people will simply use a camera to record the video as it plays on the screen. Hey, wait a minute, that sounds just like that screener I downloaded someone taped in Russia! ;) If they manage to require and implement tech so that you can't trade it over the internet (unlikely) then people will simply trade it on private networks or, like we used to do in the old days, via sneakernet. The problem is that in an attempt to control the dissemination of copyrighted material (and people are right, artists do have a right to reap the benefits of their effort) the powers-that-be are stepping over the line and into territory that impacts our ability to communicate in the fashion we choose. It might be fine to try and prevent piracy but in the process of doing so you are trashing the other desires of people that have nothing to do with piracy. I'm sure if the copyright lobby had their way, they'd require us to wear special glasses in order to see our laptop screens, on the assumption that anything not explicitly licensed was assumed to be unlicensed, and thus pirated, which we would be blocked from our field of view... and as a result, some girl/guy who wants to write a simple freeware text editor now has to jump through regulatory hoops and spend money to obtain a special registration that allows their text editor to display to the screen. This is a cheesy example, but I think it makes the point. In the guise of 'protecting artists and businesses' what is happening is that the powers-that-be are requesting (and too often getting) powers that allow them to trample on the general idea of freedom of communications and other things people cherish. As a result, people are inclined to engage in the very behaviours that elicited
Re: [Full-disclosure] when did piracy/theft become expression of freedom
Of course I wouldn't, downloading a car would be like stealing a car. Piracy is horrible and all the boats used by the pirate scum should be taken away. 2012/1/28 Laurelai laure...@oneechan.org On this topic i saw this https://thepiratebay.org/torrent/6960965/1970_Chevelle_Hot-Rod_3d_model , real question is would you download a car if you could? ___ Full-Disclosure - We believe in it. Charter: http://lists.grok.org.uk/full-disclosure-charter.html Hosted and sponsored by Secunia - http://secunia.com/ ___ Full-Disclosure - We believe in it. Charter: http://lists.grok.org.uk/full-disclosure-charter.html Hosted and sponsored by Secunia - http://secunia.com/
Re: [Full-disclosure] when did piracy/theft become expression of freedom
DDoS their boats. 2012/1/28 Laurelai laure...@oneechan.org On 1/28/2012 3:13 PM, Julius Kivimäki wrote: Of course I wouldn't, downloading a car would be like stealing a car. Piracy is horrible and all the boats used by the pirate scum should be taken away. 2012/1/28 Laurelai laure...@oneechan.org On this topic i saw this https://thepiratebay.org/torrent/6960965/1970_Chevelle_Hot-Rod_3d_model , real question is would you download a car if you could? ___ Full-Disclosure - We believe in it. Charter: http://lists.grok.org.uk/full-disclosure-charter.html Hosted and sponsored by Secunia - http://secunia.com/ If you took away their boats they would just download more...duh. ___ Full-Disclosure - We believe in it. Charter: http://lists.grok.org.uk/full-disclosure-charter.html Hosted and sponsored by Secunia - http://secunia.com/
Re: [Full-disclosure] when did piracy/theft become expression of freedom
On Sat, Jan 28, 2012 at 5:41 PM, Benjamin Kreuter ben.kreu...@gmail.com wrote: The best compromise I can think of is to treat noncommercial copyright infringement like a parking violation: you get a ticket for some small but annoying amount of money. This is the best solution I've seen anywhere, by far. Kudos. Alex ___ Full-Disclosure - We believe in it. Charter: http://lists.grok.org.uk/full-disclosure-charter.html Hosted and sponsored by Secunia - http://secunia.com/
Re: [Full-disclosure] when did piracy/theft become expression of freedom
Saw this subject on the work email. Follow this list to learn random stuff ans stay informed, so thanks for all your posts and such. Also do the music thing, and I can tell you that if you ask ten musicians who write and record their own music, you'll get ten different answers. From personal experience, I don't really care about electronic copies being redistributed for free, but when people sell electronic copies or steal physical copies (that shit gets expensive quick), that's when I get. pissed. However, I also feel that if you have an opinion about that, it should be communicated to folks before you give them copies, so my act has a little statement on our website, goatropinbastards.com, that asks the downloader to only uses the stuff for their own personal use. I can understand artists being pissed if they spend six figures to make a record and such, but when you're a hobbyist making albums on a computer in a tar papershack in the Appalachia, I guess your a little more lax. Hope that helps with the rights-holder point of view. FUCK SOPA!!! Sent from my Verizon Wireless BlackBerry ___ Full-Disclosure - We believe in it. Charter: http://lists.grok.org.uk/full-disclosure-charter.html Hosted and sponsored by Secunia - http://secunia.com/
Re: [Full-disclosure] when did piracy/theft become expression of freedom
On Mon, 30 Jan 2012 01:22:23 PST, Zach C. said: (Fair use being the main exception there, but fair use usually implies something distinctive being done to the work, too, as opposed to minor editing/shitty encoding. Feel free to correct!) Two of the major areas of fair use *are* minor editing/shitty encoding: 1) minor editing - The ability to take small chunks for analysis/commentary/reviews. It's a lot easier and more informative if you're talking about the chord changes in a Beatles song to actually *include* snippets of the changes, or if you're writing about how Halloweeen 37 sucks, being able to include the 5 suckiest scenes so you can voice-over why the scene sucks... And HERE we see the scriptwriter abandon all pretense at believability... 2) shitty encoding - At one time, it was legal to buy an album or a CD, and then re-record it yourself onto other media. I believe the term is ripping. :) And there was even a Supreme Court decision that said it was perfectly OK. Unfortunately, the DMCA makes that a *lot* harder or even illegal - Skylarov got in trouble for revealing that Adobe was using rot-13 to encrypte ebooks. What was Skylarov trying to do? Feed an ebook to a text-to-speech so blind people could actually use the ebook they had purchased - which everybody sane agrees is covered under 'fair use', but there isn't any such exemption in the anti-circumvention clause. pgpe61GdarCcH.pgp Description: PGP signature ___ Full-Disclosure - We believe in it. Charter: http://lists.grok.org.uk/full-disclosure-charter.html Hosted and sponsored by Secunia - http://secunia.com/
Re: [Full-disclosure] when did piracy/theft become expression of freedom
Dear Valdis and whoever else; The really ridiculous points are the following: A) Every time you execute/install/download a program you are committing evil data theft by not only copying secret or illegal information into RAM/Disk/Registers/Buffers/Busses/photons coming off the screen/human memory/history of the universe but potentially not just your physical property but on hundreds of routers and deduplication boxen around the earth. B) You can't copyright or own a number, all digital representations are numbers, due to the boolean nature (no fuzzy data), etc. C) Any data is a form of any other data given a specific transform, e.g. manifold / encryption key + algo, something as trivial as XOR D) You guys already know these points so why do we even care anymore about what these people say? Why even have these conversations. They will never stop. It's about greed and shortsightedness, not about what is moral or logical. Just try to ignore them or change the subject when the parrots start talking. And to preempt the flames from the blind, Yes I feel artists should be compensated for their contribution. It's 5am- bye. On Sat, Jan 28, 2012 at 5:26 PM, valdis.kletni...@vt.edu wrote: On Fri, 27 Jan 2012 19:02:09 PST, Zach C. said: If you buy an album used, the seller generally loses possession of it, you gain possession of it at a reduced cost, and the original purchase still gave the original seller and producer value. Note that if I shoplift a CD that sucks and isn't worth the $14.99 sticker price, I have deprived the producer of the ability to sell it to somebody else. That's the crucial point that underlies our social concept of theft - if I take it from you, you don't have it anymore. If I copy an album that isn't worth the sticker price, and which I would not have purchased at that price, two things of note happen: 1) As much as the labels wish it were so, they can't count that as lost revenue because it wouldn't have acccrued to them anyhow, any more than a car dealership can legitimately call it lost revenue if I walk onto their lot, tell the salescritter they're crazy if they think I'll pay $28K for a given car, and walk off the lot. (Now, if they want to count the Damn, we lost the $4.99 that guy *would* have paid if we charged that instead of $14.99, they're welcome to that. :) 2) More importantly, they still have the original bits and are free to look for other suckers who *will* pay $14.99. For the record, all my media is legitimately acquired, though a large portion *was* obtained used and if the producers don't like that, they're welcome to go re-read first sale doctrine ;) Just trying to make people actually engage their neurons - this stuff is *not* easy to sort out, because intellectual property and digital information do *not* behave the same as cars and cows in the physical world, and unintended consequences of policy decisions are all *over* the place. (DMCA anti-circumvention clause prohibiting me from fair-use accessing my own media, I'm looking at you. :) ___ Full-Disclosure - We believe in it. Charter: http://lists.grok.org.uk/full-disclosure-charter.html Hosted and sponsored by Secunia - http://secunia.com/ ___ Full-Disclosure - We believe in it. Charter: http://lists.grok.org.uk/full-disclosure-charter.html Hosted and sponsored by Secunia - http://secunia.com/
Re: [Full-disclosure] when did piracy/theft become expression of freedom
On Sun, Jan 29, 2012 at 10:53 AM, Charles Morris cmor...@cs.odu.edu wrote: Dear Valdis and whoever else; The really ridiculous points are the following: A) Every time you execute/install/download a program you are committing evil data theft by not only copying secret or illegal information into RAM/Disk/Registers/Buffers/Busses/photons coming off the screen/human memory/history of the universe but potentially not just your physical property but on hundreds of routers and deduplication boxen around the earth. which is allowed to you by the copyright holders. B) You can't copyright or own a number, all digital representations are numbers, due to the boolean nature (no fuzzy data), etc. sadly one can: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Illegal_prime C) Any data is a form of any other data given a specific transform, e.g. manifold / encryption key + algo, something as trivial as XOR and? D) You guys already know these points so why do we even care anymore about what these people say? Why even have these conversations. They will never stop. It's about greed and shortsightedness, not about what is moral or logical. Just try to ignore them or change the subject when the parrots start talking. you can't ignore them until the law is supporting them. And to preempt the flames from the blind, Yes I feel artists should be compensated for their contribution. agree -- Ferenc Kovács @Tyr43l - http://tyrael.hu ___ Full-Disclosure - We believe in it. Charter: http://lists.grok.org.uk/full-disclosure-charter.html Hosted and sponsored by Secunia - http://secunia.com/
Re: [Full-disclosure] when did piracy/theft become expression of freedom
On Sat, Jan 28, 2012 at 2:26 PM, valdis.kletni...@vt.edu wrote: ... For the record, all my media is legitimately acquired, i once saw Valdis rockin' out with headphones on - volume at 11, providing an unauthorized, non-personal broadcast of a copyright'ed composition to those near by. clearly a public performance outside the limited scope of his personal use only license for the material. officers, arrest this man! (and his mustache too...) [ resting that portable DVD player on top of your seat where others may view it is also a federal crime! i'm just trying to inform. they won't let you into Ethical Hacker training with a felony conviction. i tried... ~_~; ] ___ Full-Disclosure - We believe in it. Charter: http://lists.grok.org.uk/full-disclosure-charter.html Hosted and sponsored by Secunia - http://secunia.com/
Re: [Full-disclosure] when did piracy/theft become expression of freedom
On Sun, 29 Jan 2012 04:53:12 EST, Charles Morris said: A) Every time you execute/install/download a program you are committing evil data theft by not only copying Actually, at least in the US, the copy into RAM required to execute a program is already covered in 17 USC 117 (a)(1). http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode17/usc_sec_17_0117000-.html There is no similar rule covering the ephemeral incidental copy created as part of viewing a webpage, nor is there case law covering it, mostly because everybody is too scared to bring a test case to trial because it may result in a precident nobody likes. So the general case law has tended towards a gentleman's agreement that a website has implicitly given permission to authorized users to make ephemeral copies similar to 117(a)(1), and prosecute unauthorized users under 18 USC 1030 and other computer hacking statutes, and we're all going to pretend the 'Save As..' menu option isn't there because it makes our collective brains hurt. ;) B) You can't copyright or own a number, all digital representations are numbers, due to the boolean nature (no fuzzy data), etc. Nice try of saying the encoding isn't the information. But that horse left the barn when sheet music became copyrightable - because whether it's symbols on sheet music, or grooves on a phonograph record, or digital recordings, you can copyright *that particular sequence* of symbols, wiggles, or numbers as expression. Heck, for that matter, the sequence of letters in a book. ;) C) Any data is a form of any other data given a specific transform, e.g. manifold / encryption key + algo, something as trivial as XOR Again, nice try. See Adobe v Skylarov and the use of ROT-13 for an example of how *that* logic worked out with respect to the DMCA anti-circumvention clause. pgpTG1jVzOI0e.pgp Description: PGP signature ___ Full-Disclosure - We believe in it. Charter: http://lists.grok.org.uk/full-disclosure-charter.html Hosted and sponsored by Secunia - http://secunia.com/
Re: [Full-disclosure] when did piracy/theft become expression of freedom
The thing that makes me laugh about all of this, and one of the key things I learned from reading Gibbon's Decline Fall is this: The number and frequency of laws passed regarding things directly relates to how widespread these things are, and how they much the laws are ignored and ineffective. Laws can't prevent a damn thing, they can only specify remedies. As it is said, it's only illegal if you get caught. The cat is out of the bag and will never be put back in. There's no way to stop people from 'illegally' copying copyrighted material. If they somehow managed to require and implement tech so that perfect digital copies can't be made (unlikely) then people will simply use a camera to record the video as it plays on the screen. Hey, wait a minute, that sounds just like that screener I downloaded someone taped in Russia! ;) If they manage to require and implement tech so that you can't trade it over the internet (unlikely) then people will simply trade it on private networks or, like we used to do in the old days, via sneakernet. The problem is that in an attempt to control the dissemination of copyrighted material (and people are right, artists do have a right to reap the benefits of their effort) the powers-that-be are stepping over the line and into territory that impacts our ability to communicate in the fashion we choose. It might be fine to try and prevent piracy but in the process of doing so you are trashing the other desires of people that have nothing to do with piracy. I'm sure if the copyright lobby had their way, they'd require us to wear special glasses in order to see our laptop screens, on the assumption that anything not explicitly licensed was assumed to be unlicensed, and thus pirated, which we would be blocked from our field of view... and as a result, some girl/guy who wants to write a simple freeware text editor now has to jump through regulatory hoops and spend money to obtain a special registration that allows their text editor to display to the screen. This is a cheesy example, but I think it makes the point. In the guise of 'protecting artists and businesses' what is happening is that the powers-that-be are requesting (and too often getting) powers that allow them to trample on the general idea of freedom of communications and other things people cherish. As a result, people are inclined to engage in the very behaviours that elicited the laws and crackdowns, quite simply, as a way to raise their middle finger and say Fuck You. This is when piracy and theft becomes freedom of expression - when it's done in protest. -- http://www.freebyron.org ___ Full-Disclosure - We believe in it. Charter: http://lists.grok.org.uk/full-disclosure-charter.html Hosted and sponsored by Secunia - http://secunia.com/
Re: [Full-disclosure] when did piracy/theft become expression of freedom
Byron, you don't protest to the government by burning down 100-year-old business, if you know what I mean... On Mon, Jan 30, 2012 at 12:12 AM, Byron L. Sonne byron.so...@gmail.comwrote: The thing that makes me laugh about all of this, and one of the key things I learned from reading Gibbon's Decline Fall is this: The number and frequency of laws passed regarding things directly relates to how widespread these things are, and how they much the laws are ignored and ineffective. Laws can't prevent a damn thing, they can only specify remedies. As it is said, it's only illegal if you get caught. The cat is out of the bag and will never be put back in. There's no way to stop people from 'illegally' copying copyrighted material. If they somehow managed to require and implement tech so that perfect digital copies can't be made (unlikely) then people will simply use a camera to record the video as it plays on the screen. Hey, wait a minute, that sounds just like that screener I downloaded someone taped in Russia! ;) If they manage to require and implement tech so that you can't trade it over the internet (unlikely) then people will simply trade it on private networks or, like we used to do in the old days, via sneakernet. The problem is that in an attempt to control the dissemination of copyrighted material (and people are right, artists do have a right to reap the benefits of their effort) the powers-that-be are stepping over the line and into territory that impacts our ability to communicate in the fashion we choose. It might be fine to try and prevent piracy but in the process of doing so you are trashing the other desires of people that have nothing to do with piracy. I'm sure if the copyright lobby had their way, they'd require us to wear special glasses in order to see our laptop screens, on the assumption that anything not explicitly licensed was assumed to be unlicensed, and thus pirated, which we would be blocked from our field of view... and as a result, some girl/guy who wants to write a simple freeware text editor now has to jump through regulatory hoops and spend money to obtain a special registration that allows their text editor to display to the screen. This is a cheesy example, but I think it makes the point. In the guise of 'protecting artists and businesses' what is happening is that the powers-that-be are requesting (and too often getting) powers that allow them to trample on the general idea of freedom of communications and other things people cherish. As a result, people are inclined to engage in the very behaviours that elicited the laws and crackdowns, quite simply, as a way to raise their middle finger and say Fuck You. This is when piracy and theft becomes freedom of expression - when it's done in protest. -- http://www.freebyron.org ___ Full-Disclosure - We believe in it. Charter: http://lists.grok.org.uk/full-disclosure-charter.html Hosted and sponsored by Secunia - http://secunia.com/ ___ Full-Disclosure - We believe in it. Charter: http://lists.grok.org.uk/full-disclosure-charter.html Hosted and sponsored by Secunia - http://secunia.com/
Re: [Full-disclosure] when did piracy/theft become expression of freedom
What you said doesn't follow. Making a digital copy isn't burning down a business. The analogy linking 'piracy' with theft is ludicrous. On Sun, Jan 29, 2012 at 11:50 PM, Christian Sciberras uuf6...@gmail.com wrote: Byron, you don't protest to the government by burning down 100-year-old business, if you know what I mean... On Mon, Jan 30, 2012 at 12:12 AM, Byron L. Sonne byron.so...@gmail.com wrote: The thing that makes me laugh about all of this, and one of the key things I learned from reading Gibbon's Decline Fall is this: The number and frequency of laws passed regarding things directly relates to how widespread these things are, and how they much the laws are ignored and ineffective. Laws can't prevent a damn thing, they can only specify remedies. As it is said, it's only illegal if you get caught. The cat is out of the bag and will never be put back in. There's no way to stop people from 'illegally' copying copyrighted material. If they somehow managed to require and implement tech so that perfect digital copies can't be made (unlikely) then people will simply use a camera to record the video as it plays on the screen. Hey, wait a minute, that sounds just like that screener I downloaded someone taped in Russia! ;) If they manage to require and implement tech so that you can't trade it over the internet (unlikely) then people will simply trade it on private networks or, like we used to do in the old days, via sneakernet. The problem is that in an attempt to control the dissemination of copyrighted material (and people are right, artists do have a right to reap the benefits of their effort) the powers-that-be are stepping over the line and into territory that impacts our ability to communicate in the fashion we choose. It might be fine to try and prevent piracy but in the process of doing so you are trashing the other desires of people that have nothing to do with piracy. I'm sure if the copyright lobby had their way, they'd require us to wear special glasses in order to see our laptop screens, on the assumption that anything not explicitly licensed was assumed to be unlicensed, and thus pirated, which we would be blocked from our field of view... and as a result, some girl/guy who wants to write a simple freeware text editor now has to jump through regulatory hoops and spend money to obtain a special registration that allows their text editor to display to the screen. This is a cheesy example, but I think it makes the point. In the guise of 'protecting artists and businesses' what is happening is that the powers-that-be are requesting (and too often getting) powers that allow them to trample on the general idea of freedom of communications and other things people cherish. As a result, people are inclined to engage in the very behaviours that elicited the laws and crackdowns, quite simply, as a way to raise their middle finger and say Fuck You. This is when piracy and theft becomes freedom of expression - when it's done in protest. -- http://www.freebyron.org ___ Full-Disclosure - We believe in it. Charter: http://lists.grok.org.uk/full-disclosure-charter.html Hosted and sponsored by Secunia - http://secunia.com/ ___ Full-Disclosure - We believe in it. Charter: http://lists.grok.org.uk/full-disclosure-charter.html Hosted and sponsored by Secunia - http://secunia.com/ -- 09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0 ___ Full-Disclosure - We believe in it. Charter: http://lists.grok.org.uk/full-disclosure-charter.html Hosted and sponsored by Secunia - http://secunia.com/
Re: [Full-disclosure] when did piracy/theft become expression of freedom
On this topic i saw this https://thepiratebay.org/torrent/6960965/1970_Chevelle_Hot-Rod_3d_model , real question is would you download a car if you could? ___ Full-Disclosure - We believe in it. Charter: http://lists.grok.org.uk/full-disclosure-charter.html Hosted and sponsored by Secunia - http://secunia.com/
Re: [Full-disclosure] when did piracy/theft become expression of freedom
On 1/28/2012 3:13 PM, Julius Kivimäki wrote: Of course I wouldn't, downloading a car would be like stealing a car. Piracy is horrible and all the boats used by the pirate scum should be taken away. 2012/1/28 Laurelai laure...@oneechan.org mailto:laure...@oneechan.org On this topic i saw this https://thepiratebay.org/torrent/6960965/1970_Chevelle_Hot-Rod_3d_model , real question is would you download a car if you could? ___ Full-Disclosure - We believe in it. Charter: http://lists.grok.org.uk/full-disclosure-charter.html Hosted and sponsored by Secunia - http://secunia.com/ If you took away their boats they would just download more...duh. ___ Full-Disclosure - We believe in it. Charter: http://lists.grok.org.uk/full-disclosure-charter.html Hosted and sponsored by Secunia - http://secunia.com/
Re: [Full-disclosure] when did piracy/theft become expression of freedom
Sadly you can't download routers and internet connections...especially without an internet connection. But I suppose you could be the regular joe and steal from your neighbours' bandwidth (it's a human right, remember? your neighbour doesn't have a right to keep the internets to himself!!!). /rant On Sat, Jan 28, 2012 at 10:33 PM, Laurelai laure...@oneechan.org wrote: On 1/28/2012 3:13 PM, Julius Kivimäki wrote: Of course I wouldn't, downloading a car would be like stealing a car. Piracy is horrible and all the boats used by the pirate scum should be taken away. 2012/1/28 Laurelai laure...@oneechan.org On this topic i saw this https://thepiratebay.org/torrent/6960965/1970_Chevelle_Hot-Rod_3d_model , real question is would you download a car if you could? ___ Full-Disclosure - We believe in it. Charter: http://lists.grok.org.uk/full-disclosure-charter.html Hosted and sponsored by Secunia - http://secunia.com/ If you took away their boats they would just download more...duh. ___ Full-Disclosure - We believe in it. Charter: http://lists.grok.org.uk/full-disclosure-charter.html Hosted and sponsored by Secunia - http://secunia.com/ ___ Full-Disclosure - We believe in it. Charter: http://lists.grok.org.uk/full-disclosure-charter.html Hosted and sponsored by Secunia - http://secunia.com/
Re: [Full-disclosure] when did piracy/theft become expression of freedom
On 1/28/2012 3:36 PM, Christian Sciberras wrote: Sadly you can't download routers and internet connections...especially without an internet connection. But I suppose you could be the regular joe and steal from your neighbours' bandwidth (it's a human right, remember? your neighbour doesn't have a right to keep the internets to himself!!!). /rant On Sat, Jan 28, 2012 at 10:33 PM, Laurelai laure...@oneechan.org mailto:laure...@oneechan.org wrote: On 1/28/2012 3:13 PM, Julius Kivimäki wrote: Of course I wouldn't, downloading a car would be like stealing a car. Piracy is horrible and all the boats used by the pirate scum should be taken away. 2012/1/28 Laurelai laure...@oneechan.org mailto:laure...@oneechan.org On this topic i saw this https://thepiratebay.org/torrent/6960965/1970_Chevelle_Hot-Rod_3d_model , real question is would you download a car if you could? ___ Full-Disclosure - We believe in it. Charter: http://lists.grok.org.uk/full-disclosure-charter.html Hosted and sponsored by Secunia - http://secunia.com/ If you took away their boats they would just download more...duh. ___ Full-Disclosure - We believe in it. Charter: http://lists.grok.org.uk/full-disclosure-charter.html Hosted and sponsored by Secunia - http://secunia.com/ There are always public hotspots, hell even mcdonalds has them now. ___ Full-Disclosure - We believe in it. Charter: http://lists.grok.org.uk/full-disclosure-charter.html Hosted and sponsored by Secunia - http://secunia.com/
Re: [Full-disclosure] when did piracy/theft become expression of freedom
On Fri, 27 Jan 2012 19:02:09 PST, Zach C. said: If you buy an album used, the seller generally loses possession of it, you gain possession of it at a reduced cost, and the original purchase still gave the original seller and producer value. Note that if I shoplift a CD that sucks and isn't worth the $14.99 sticker price, I have deprived the producer of the ability to sell it to somebody else. That's the crucial point that underlies our social concept of theft - if I take it from you, you don't have it anymore. If I copy an album that isn't worth the sticker price, and which I would not have purchased at that price, two things of note happen: 1) As much as the labels wish it were so, they can't count that as lost revenue because it wouldn't have acccrued to them anyhow, any more than a car dealership can legitimately call it lost revenue if I walk onto their lot, tell the salescritter they're crazy if they think I'll pay $28K for a given car, and walk off the lot. (Now, if they want to count the Damn, we lost the $4.99 that guy *would* have paid if we charged that instead of $14.99, they're welcome to that. :) 2) More importantly, they still have the original bits and are free to look for other suckers who *will* pay $14.99. For the record, all my media is legitimately acquired, though a large portion *was* obtained used and if the producers don't like that, they're welcome to go re-read first sale doctrine ;) Just trying to make people actually engage their neurons - this stuff is *not* easy to sort out, because intellectual property and digital information do *not* behave the same as cars and cows in the physical world, and unintended consequences of policy decisions are all *over* the place. (DMCA anti-circumvention clause prohibiting me from fair-use accessing my own media, I'm looking at you. :) pgpzEuY3nOpIX.pgp Description: PGP signature ___ Full-Disclosure - We believe in it. Charter: http://lists.grok.org.uk/full-disclosure-charter.html Hosted and sponsored by Secunia - http://secunia.com/
Re: [Full-disclosure] when did piracy/theft become expression of freedom
That has always been viewed from the consumer perspective. If you look at it from the producers' perspective, you'll see their right to withhold their creative content until you pay something back. While the terminology is not correct, it doesn't mean you can abuse it and expect people to waste time for you. Another thing to note, if artists, software companies etc were so nice to actually want to give all this stuff for free, I'm pretty sure no one is forcing them to sell their content. So don't talk about the they're not loosing anything bullshit to me. Laurelai - Yes, I'm sure McDonalds have acknowledged your human right to a free internet connection. Next thing they'll be feeding you for free as well On Sat, Jan 28, 2012 at 11:26 PM, valdis.kletni...@vt.edu wrote: On Fri, 27 Jan 2012 19:02:09 PST, Zach C. said: If you buy an album used, the seller generally loses possession of it, you gain possession of it at a reduced cost, and the original purchase still gave the original seller and producer value. Note that if I shoplift a CD that sucks and isn't worth the $14.99 sticker price, I have deprived the producer of the ability to sell it to somebody else. That's the crucial point that underlies our social concept of theft - if I take it from you, you don't have it anymore. If I copy an album that isn't worth the sticker price, and which I would not have purchased at that price, two things of note happen: 1) As much as the labels wish it were so, they can't count that as lost revenue because it wouldn't have acccrued to them anyhow, any more than a car dealership can legitimately call it lost revenue if I walk onto their lot, tell the salescritter they're crazy if they think I'll pay $28K for a given car, and walk off the lot. (Now, if they want to count the Damn, we lost the $4.99 that guy *would* have paid if we charged that instead of $14.99, they're welcome to that. :) 2) More importantly, they still have the original bits and are free to look for other suckers who *will* pay $14.99. For the record, all my media is legitimately acquired, though a large portion *was* obtained used and if the producers don't like that, they're welcome to go re-read first sale doctrine ;) Just trying to make people actually engage their neurons - this stuff is *not* easy to sort out, because intellectual property and digital information do *not* behave the same as cars and cows in the physical world, and unintended consequences of policy decisions are all *over* the place. (DMCA anti-circumvention clause prohibiting me from fair-use accessing my own media, I'm looking at you. :) ___ Full-Disclosure - We believe in it. Charter: http://lists.grok.org.uk/full-disclosure-charter.html Hosted and sponsored by Secunia - http://secunia.com/ ___ Full-Disclosure - We believe in it. Charter: http://lists.grok.org.uk/full-disclosure-charter.html Hosted and sponsored by Secunia - http://secunia.com/
Re: [Full-disclosure] when did piracy/theft become expression of freedom
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA512 On Fri, 27 Jan 2012 19:02:09 -0800 Zach C. fxc...@gmail.com wrote: On Jan 27, 2012 4:07 PM, valdis.kletni...@vt.edu wrote: On Fri, 27 Jan 2012 18:06:28 GMT, Michael Schmidt said: You want to be very careful with that line of thought. You are taking the creator the rightful owners profits, which they are entitled to if it is a product they created to be sold. You might want to go read Courtney Love Does The Math, and then ask yourself the following: 1) You can make a case that if you copy an album intead of buying it, you're depriving somebody of profits. But what if it's an album that you would *not* have bought at full price anyhow? Or one that you bought used (see first sale principle)? If you buy an album used, the seller generally loses possession of it, you gain possession of it at a reduced cost, and the original purchase still gave the original seller and producer value. Value has still been exchanged, assuming no literal theft was involved to make the whole thing criminal anyway. If you make a copy, you're pretty much creating (or, if you prefer, *re*-creating) value out of basically nothing using source material, but nothing of value goes back to the original creator of what was copied. Except that there are plenty of legal and unquestionably ethical situations where things are copied without any transfer of value to the original creator. Nothing is created in a vacuum; musicians are inspired by other musicians, film makers by other film makers, authors by authors, etc. Nobody is so original that they can claim that their creative work did not borrow ideas from other creative work. Moreover, even copying a work in its entirety may fall under fair use; when was the last time you paid royalties for the use of the Happy Birthday song? 2) Who gets those profits, the artist, the label, or the RIAA? Are you stealing profits from the artist, or are you stealing them from somebody else who was attemting to steal them from the artist? All of the above; while the companies' creative accounting is almost criminally bullshit, the artist *still* gets a cut and even a profit if they do well enough. As a nasty little bonus, any profit taken from those companies will never, ever be seen by the artist regardless. There is a 100% better chance of an artist receiving money via a record company getting paid for the artist's work than a record company *not* getting paid from the artist's work. It's gotta come from somewhere. So if you're screwing them and they're screwing the artist, you just wind up making them screw the artist that much harder. This is not as clear-cut as one might think. Musicians make a lot of money doing live shows, and a live show is an experience that cannot be downloaded. Attendance at live shows is driven by the popularity of the musicians, which is increased by downloading as much as it is increased by radio broadcasting, if not more. One of the major criticisms of Metallica's lawsuit against Napster users was that in their early days, Metallica became popular because people would record them at their concerts and distribute the recordings. The way I see it, the way we cling to copyrights and try to protect industries that were built on the copyright system when we now have computers and computer networks is equivalent to hiring scribes and protecting their jobs in an age of printing presses. Copyrights were a great idea back when copying creative works required specialized industrial equipment. Since that is no longer the case, we should instead be investigating new systems for promoting art and science and building new industries around such systems. Copyrights are not going to die overnight, just like scribes continued to be employed for some time after the printing press spread, but eventually copyrights are going to die -- or else computers and global computer networks are going to have to die. I doubt that technology can be rolled back, but creating a new legal framework does not seem to be infeasible. - -- Ben - -- Benjamin R Kreuter UVA Computer Science brk...@virginia.edu - -- If large numbers of people are interested in freedom of speech, there will be freedom of speech, even if the law forbids it; if public opinion is sluggish, inconvenient minorities will be persecuted, even if laws exist to protect them. - George Orwell -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v2.0.14 (GNU/Linux) iQIcBAEBCgAGBQJPJHGjAAoJEOV0+MnZK9ij8DgP/18O3od/dCCCntoh6ygS0P0O TRCOCp/0wcZzS+lJuWSLnpelOqXEiWaSVxQst0Wwab4DN5t2Iif1gjp6Ot54aTn4 Ub8mBYm/nn0QZI7t75A22zLJkSPdgpQt66YvLLaghqnfhDvbJ9UrdpYpDiXkJhFV 19yyZKtQnXN0SnbkzVq8WiQXcP/49dE2UjacV7cO9D9Z8jUUaw4K9Z5w2Lv0rzap NL0XANYJ9QWA2hdzaoaAF7c5p6gfQoQOLBsVSP1x14OEZCezk9zc9+ZgVtx1FEqq /JIiAVKzkklBBNUM2wLMVUSo7wT0wXYBqBmEtLfHohJVIoa7FKfqJi3qmcqZ4dON
Re: [Full-disclosure] when did piracy/theft become expression of freedom
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA512 On Sat, 28 Jan 2012 02:16:45 + Thor (Hammer of God) t...@hammerofgod.com wrote: -Original Message- From: full-disclosure-boun...@lists.grok.org.uk [mailto:full-disclosure- boun...@lists.grok.org.uk] On Behalf Of valdis.kletni...@vt.edu Sent: Friday, January 27, 2012 4:06 PM To: Michael Schmidt Cc: full-disclosure@lists.grok.org.uk Subject: Re: [Full-disclosure] when did piracy/theft become expression of freedom On Fri, 27 Jan 2012 18:06:28 GMT, Michael Schmidt said: You want to be very careful with that line of thought. You are taking the creator the rightful owners profits, which they are entitled to if it is a product they created to be sold. You might want to go read Courtney Love Does The Math, and then ask yourself the following: 1) You can make a case that if you copy an album intead of buying it, you're depriving somebody of profits. But what if it's an album that you would *not* have bought at full price anyhow? Or one that you bought used (see first sale principle)? These arguments do more harm than good. You can't base property law This is not a discussion about property law, it is a discussion about copyrights. Copyrights, at least in my country, are very much different from property rights: 1. Property rights never expire; copyrights are required to expire by the constitution. 2. Property rights are not optional, but automatic; copyrights are an optional system according to the constitution, and if Congress wanted to they could do away with copyrights. But if you were not going to pay full price, that doesn't give you any right to steal it. That is simply absurd. This is not a discussion about stealing either. We do not charge people with theft/robbery/larceny/etc. when they download or share music, even when they do so on a felony scale. But whether or not the behavior ends up benefiting the industry or not is irrelevant; I've still broken the law. That is up to a judge; copyright cases must be heard by a judge, who decides whether or not a particular act of copying is fair use (or at least that was the original theory). That's where is should end, but it doesn't. Sharing music not purchased is already illegal. Not always; Wikipedia has a large selection of public domain music available for download, as do many other sources. There is music that is licensed under one of various creative commons licenses. The companies already have legal remedies available. Which are not appropriate for dealing with cases of home users downloading and sharing music/etc. Copyright law is designed to be heard in front of a judge, with expensive lawyers arguing the case; there is no way that such a system could possibly work to prevent individual people from downloading/sharing and everyone knows it. The RIAA sought such huge, headline grabbing damages in an attempt to scare people away from P2P, and even that failed -- they just damaged their reputation and drove people to use file sharing websites, which are shielded by the DMCA. This is not to say that the law should be strengthened or that the government should be hijacked to further the interests of copyright holders. This just means that copyright is out of date and needs to be completely overhauled. Unfortunately, the people who are supposed to benefit from the copyright system, the general public, have nothing close to the political and financial power that the copyright industry lobbyists have. The best compromise I can think of is to treat noncommercial copyright infringement like a parking violation: you get a ticket for some small but annoying amount of money. That is the only way to enforce a law that everyone is meant to follow and that anyone can easily break. It is absurd to think that our judicial system can handle the volume of cases that would be required to enforce copyrights, and the other option is to just let the old industries die (which is probably not a bad idea). The fun begins when the record companies start sniping each other. That is how it is supposed to be. Remember when The Verve got their pants sued of by the Rolling Stones copyright holder for Bittersweet Symphony? It was a clean cut case of copyright infringement. What if SOPA or the next round of it does pass - will ABKCO Records legally be able to get Hut Records entire web site shut down? The point of SOPA is to kill the Internet; that is what all these laws and government actions are building towards. The old media giants do not want to die, and they know that a network where anyone can share entertainment with anyone else will ultimately kill them. What they would prefer is something like the cable TV system: a network where the consumers are only able to consume. They love the cable TV system because they only have to deal with other corporations, who can be taken to court where copyright law can be reasonably applied
Re: [Full-disclosure] when did piracy/theft become expression of freedom
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA512 On Sat, 28 Jan 2012 23:49:09 +0100 Christian Sciberras uuf6...@gmail.com wrote: That has always been viewed from the consumer perspective. Copyrights exist for consumers, at least according to the US constitution: The Congress shall have the Power...To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries... Copyrights do not exist for the benefit of producers; that is only a means to an end. The point of the copyright system is to benefit the general public. If you look at it from the producers' perspective, you'll see their right to withhold their creative content until you pay something back. ...which is not the same as their right to prevent you from making copies of their work. Another thing to note, if artists, software companies etc were so nice to actually want to give all this stuff for free, I'm pretty sure no one is forcing them to sell their content. So don't talk about the they're not loosing anything bullshit to me. Then tell me what they lost. Can you prove that someone who downloaded a song would have spent money on the song if it had not been available for download? The argument that losses are incurred for every download has always been baseless and always will be. Really though, what difference does it make if copyright industries are losing money? When last I checked, the stagecoach industry lost lots of money when the automobile was invented. Would you claim that people were stealing from stagecoach drivers by failing to support that industry and instead using their cars? Are you crying foul when people use digital cameras and incur losses for the film industry? Who was stealing from all those sheet music copyists and printers who lost their jobs because of the recording industry? Industries need to adapt to the times, or else they die. What makes recording, movie production, etc. so special? - -- Ben - -- Benjamin R Kreuter UVA Computer Science brk...@virginia.edu - -- If large numbers of people are interested in freedom of speech, there will be freedom of speech, even if the law forbids it; if public opinion is sluggish, inconvenient minorities will be persecuted, even if laws exist to protect them. - George Orwell -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v2.0.14 (GNU/Linux) iQIcBAEBCgAGBQJPJIFrAAoJEOV0+MnZK9ijkMAQAJyEcn82uLXVPFi1xnawUf+7 VkV5kVLv8idMRFqaByi3k+O7pYQEB9s5vah8NGHpJH34HSanQ4yqkMap1RR1G6S5 gMlHS1Cdut1u6GaUwTL7m8DkU2knWoBF4oEsh2GCn0zU1H18Mi/y83WmHRiqXVDD Oq45RwhSmoy/3IhucxqQFQDubQ4Hb3MiA1R5zzqKCNTpRP/eL3hdCDiFUbzIRu+F i4xpeVfE4c5KDYfNU0vvB/PKThmUg1gGmtTegNiidoAfSGXIwxRueKRkL0oRN5H/ DYYEgztadAWzVA58u8KC2Zkv+8Mfq6+tOqFz2MVMtz4B6DLX/8pEaW6liPiMYbXt KFT4Me2uNzj6t3heaqROBq2gDNIQg57p+eU2QXiNx0u0M+CpM1KBhGjjsjFdkqwo NljJ4nd5b1KNzu2Oyg4Up+xngWi2gIOkM/2nC24IzFxkkEQw4y2P4+dQqAiZgc92 XuHRay1AzFXMNn2GvAnMWVCZ3ZSFXwP3LOXo5gNpii9wC4wiGEZWEWbvdVJvHM9T MujLHejTeMi755fP1QtDbt0bk0353qXy2QEDg1h25pE/2KjIjXtnvWQhI7Hg4oDB K+mjXVS2b0Wd6pun8GWcEgUbfxtqzFP1MWBdkdIuKy/ixoVMgkuhHZLhJhK9XOWY XwXG3eDg4pP4i0dpqo9Z =G9my -END PGP SIGNATURE- ___ Full-Disclosure - We believe in it. Charter: http://lists.grok.org.uk/full-disclosure-charter.html Hosted and sponsored by Secunia - http://secunia.com/
Re: [Full-disclosure] when did piracy/theft become expression of freedom
On Sat, Jan 28, 2012 at 11:26 PM, valdis.kletni...@vt.edu wrote: On Fri, 27 Jan 2012 19:02:09 PST, Zach C. said: If you buy an album used, the seller generally loses possession of it, you gain possession of it at a reduced cost, and the original purchase still gave the original seller and producer value. Note that if I shoplift a CD that sucks and isn't worth the $14.99 sticker price, I have deprived the producer of the ability to sell it to somebody else. That's the crucial point that underlies our social concept of theft - if I take it from you, you don't have it anymore. If I copy an album that isn't worth the sticker price, and which I would not have purchased at that price, two things of note happen: 1) As much as the labels wish it were so, they can't count that as lost revenue because it wouldn't have acccrued to them anyhow, any more than a car dealership can legitimately call it lost revenue if I walk onto their lot, tell the salescritter they're crazy if they think I'll pay $28K for a given car, and walk off the lot. (Now, if they want to count the Damn, we lost the $4.99 that guy *would* have paid if we charged that instead of $14.99, they're welcome to that. :) 2) More importantly, they still have the original bits and are free to look for other suckers who *will* pay $14.99. the shop can supplement the stolen CD for much less than 14.99, and also manufacturing a cd cost much less. the price not only contains the material value of the given product, but it is an arbitrary number, which was calculated based on the cost of the production(and marketing, and shipping, and etc.) costs of the product, and on the demand and pricing of that kind of product, so basically the market. the difference with the digital goods that there is no material part of the package, so it could seem that there is no theft and no loss of revenue. which could be true, if only those would pirate, who otherwise wouldn't/couldn't buy the product, which imo is not true. -- Ferenc Kovács @Tyr43l - http://tyrael.hu ___ Full-Disclosure - We believe in it. Charter: http://lists.grok.org.uk/full-disclosure-charter.html Hosted and sponsored by Secunia - http://secunia.com/
Re: [Full-disclosure] when did piracy/theft become expression of freedom
Another thing to note, if artists, software companies etc were so nice to actually want to give all this stuff for free, I'm pretty sure no one is forcing them to sell their content. So don't talk about the they're not loosing anything bullshit to me. Then tell me what they lost. Can you prove that someone who downloaded a song would have spent money on the song if it had not been available for download? The argument that losses are incurred for every download has always been baseless and always will be. if you steal a bottle of milk, you can argue that it was right before the shop closing, and the warranty would have expired before they could sell it to somebody else, and demand them to prove it otherwise... Really though, what difference does it make if copyright industries are losing money? When last I checked, the stagecoach industry lost lots of money when the automobile was invented. Would you claim that people were stealing from stagecoach drivers by failing to support that industry and instead using their cars? Are you crying foul when people use digital cameras and incur losses for the film industry? Who was stealing from all those sheet music copyists and printers who lost their jobs because of the recording industry? Industries need to adapt to the times, or else they die. What makes recording, movie production, etc. so special? you forgot to link the original article, fixed it for you: http://torrentfreak.com/the-red-flag-act-of-1865-110626/ -- Ferenc Kovács @Tyr43l - http://tyrael.hu ___ Full-Disclosure - We believe in it. Charter: http://lists.grok.org.uk/full-disclosure-charter.html Hosted and sponsored by Secunia - http://secunia.com/
Re: [Full-disclosure] when did piracy/theft become expression of freedom
Copyrights exist for consumers, at least according to the US constitution: snip And? I'm talking about the simple fact that the producer has the right to earn money from his creation. Copyright is just a tool. Copyrights do not exist for the benefit of producers; that is only a means to an end. The point of the copyright system is to benefit the general public. Exactly. So, in your own words, producers are at a loss. ...which is not the same as their right to prevent you from making copies of their work. Oh come on. Who are you trying to feed that to? You know damn well current court cases target 'copyright infringement' for non-personal usesuch as copying such material and selling it for profit. Why don't you just admit many people out there are afraid of loosing their little racket? Then tell me what they lost. Can you prove that someone who downloaded a song would have spent money on the song if it had not been available for download? The argument that losses are incurred for every download has always been baseless and always will be. Can you prove that a company/group can live on by handing out free copies of their song on the internet? How many companies out there do that? Industries need to adapt to the times, or else they die. What makes recording, movie production, etc. so special? Lets turn this to a different parallel issue, open source. Last I checked, income for opensource projects tend to come from one of the following: - advertisements - paid support - training How many such activities play well with records companies? ___ Full-Disclosure - We believe in it. Charter: http://lists.grok.org.uk/full-disclosure-charter.html Hosted and sponsored by Secunia - http://secunia.com/
Re: [Full-disclosure] when did piracy/theft become expression of freedom
On Sun, 29 Jan 2012 00:30:21 +0100, Christian Sciberras said: Can you prove that a company/group can live on by handing out free copies of their song on the internet? How many companies out there do that? Actually, *most* bands that make money do so off the concert tours - tickets and tshirts is where the actual money is at, not the album sales. pgpBoKcFsSoOW.pgp Description: PGP signature ___ Full-Disclosure - We believe in it. Charter: http://lists.grok.org.uk/full-disclosure-charter.html Hosted and sponsored by Secunia - http://secunia.com/
Re: [Full-disclosure] when did piracy/theft become expression of freedom
Actually, *most* bands that make money do so off the concert tours - tickets and tshirts is where the actual money is at, not the album sales. So why bother with album sales in the first place? This is the same with free/commercial software. At the end of the day the creator decides the sales strategy. The only thing I can see in this is that the recording industry really needs to grow up to the times, but piracy is not a solution nor the means to one, just like DDoSing facebook is not the means to the removal of a certain bill/law (arguably, to the contrary). The recording companies have every right to retaliate just as the FBI has every right to arrest suspects involved in these childish acts. ___ Full-Disclosure - We believe in it. Charter: http://lists.grok.org.uk/full-disclosure-charter.html Hosted and sponsored by Secunia - http://secunia.com/
Re: [Full-disclosure] when did piracy/theft become expression of freedom
On 1/28/2012 6:55 PM, Christian Sciberras wrote: Actually, *most* bands that make money do so off the concert tours - tickets and tshirts is where the actual money is at, not the album sales. So why bother with album sales in the first place? This is the same with free/commercial software. At the end of the day the creator decides the sales strategy. The only thing I can see in this is that the recording industry really needs to grow up to the times, but piracy is not a solution nor the means to one, just like DDoSing facebook is not the means to the removal of a certain bill/law (arguably, to the contrary). The recording companies have every right to retaliate just as the FBI has every right to arrest suspects involved in these childish acts. ___ Full-Disclosure - We believe in it. Charter: http://lists.grok.org.uk/full-disclosure-charter.html Hosted and sponsored by Secunia - http://secunia.com/ The reasonable man adapts himself to the world: the unreasonable one persists to adapt the world to himself. Therefore all progress depends on the unreasonable man. -- George Bernard Shaw http://www.goodreads.com/author/show/5217.George_Bernard_Shaw, /Man and Superman http://www.goodreads.com/work/quotes/376394/ ___ Full-Disclosure - We believe in it. Charter: http://lists.grok.org.uk/full-disclosure-charter.html Hosted and sponsored by Secunia - http://secunia.com/
[Full-disclosure] when did piracy/theft become expression of freedom
im going to the 'benz dealer in the morning to express my 1st amendment right... The Somalians are learning the hard way that it just isnt so... bma___ Full-Disclosure - We believe in it. Charter: http://lists.grok.org.uk/full-disclosure-charter.html Hosted and sponsored by Secunia - http://secunia.com/
Re: [Full-disclosure] when did piracy/theft become expression of freedom
On 1/27/2012 2:24 AM, Jerry dePriest wrote: im going to the 'benz dealer in the morning to express my 1st amendment right... The Somalians are learning the hard way that it just isnt so... bma ___ Full-Disclosure - We believe in it. Charter: http://lists.grok.org.uk/full-disclosure-charter.html Hosted and sponsored by Secunia - http://secunia.com/ Piracy: an act of robbery or criminal violence at sea Theft: the illegal taking of another person's property without that person's permission or consent with the intent to deprive the rightful owner of it Software copying: Occurs neither on the high seas and does not deprive the rightful owner of it. The more you know. ___ Full-Disclosure - We believe in it. Charter: http://lists.grok.org.uk/full-disclosure-charter.html Hosted and sponsored by Secunia - http://secunia.com/
Re: [Full-disclosure] when did piracy/theft become expression of freedom
HAHAHAA... Well... it's hard to convince people that data piracy is the same as physical piracy! The think that if they CAN do somehting... they have the RIGHT to DO IT! As a content producer... I can't stand this sense of entitlement... but oh well... I've just gotta tranform with the times i guess! On Fri, Jan 27, 2012 at 5:51 PM, Laurelai laure...@oneechan.org wrote: On 1/27/2012 2:24 AM, Jerry dePriest wrote: im going to the 'benz dealer in the morning to express my 1st amendment right... The Somalians are learning the hard way that it just isnt so... bma Theft: the illegal taking of another person's property without that person's permission or consent with the intent to deprive the rightful owner of it Software copying: Occurs neither on the high seas and does not deprive the rightful owner of it. The more you know. -- Robert Q Kim Technical Chinese Korean English Translator http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QozAHbUS-VU 2611 S Coast Highway San Diego, CA 92007 310 598 1606 ___ Full-Disclosure - We believe in it. Charter: http://lists.grok.org.uk/full-disclosure-charter.html Hosted and sponsored by Secunia - http://secunia.com/
Re: [Full-disclosure] when did piracy/theft become expression of freedom
Hello, http://img256.imageshack.us/img256/2527/1282302008370.jpg know the difference. -- Cheers, Kai ___ Full-Disclosure - We believe in it. Charter: http://lists.grok.org.uk/full-disclosure-charter.html Hosted and sponsored by Secunia - http://secunia.com/
Re: [Full-disclosure] when did piracy/theft become expression of freedom
On 1/27/2012 3:01 AM, Robert Kim App and Facebook Marketing wrote: HAHAHAA... Well... it's hard to convince people that data piracy is the same as physical piracy! The think that if they CAN do somehting... they have the RIGHT to DO IT! As a content producer... I can't stand this sense of entitlement... but oh well... I've just gotta tranform with the times i guess! On Fri, Jan 27, 2012 at 5:51 PM, Laurelai laure...@oneechan.org mailto:laure...@oneechan.org wrote: On 1/27/2012 2:24 AM, Jerry dePriest wrote: im going to the 'benz dealer in the morning to express my 1st amendment right... The Somalians are learning the hard way that it just isnt so... bma Theft: the illegal taking of another person's property without that person's permission or consent with the intent to deprive the rightful owner of it Software copying: Occurs neither on the high seas and does not deprive the rightful owner of it. The more you know. -- Robert Q Kim Technical Chinese Korean English Translator http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QozAHbUS-VU 2611 S Coast Highway San Diego, CA 92007 310 598 1606 Let's not kid ourselves here, you all would download a car if you could and you know it ;) That being said I would prefer people *widely use* my software and donate money to me if they think its worth something, the humble indy bundles profits are telling in this case. Perhaps if content producers would change their business model to adapt to modern times instead of trying to force the world to live in the past software copying wouldn't be so popular. ___ Full-Disclosure - We believe in it. Charter: http://lists.grok.org.uk/full-disclosure-charter.html Hosted and sponsored by Secunia - http://secunia.com/
Re: [Full-disclosure] when did piracy/theft become expression of freedom
On 1/27/2012 3:29 AM, Vipul Agarwal wrote: Let's keep FD and Reddit apart! Regards, Vipul Sent from my HTC - Reply message - From: Kai k...@rhynn.net To: full-disclosure@lists.grok.org.uk Subject: [Full-disclosure] when did piracy/theft become expression of freedom Date: Fri, Jan 27, 2012 09:15 Hello, http://img256.imageshack.us/img256/2527/1282302008370.jpg know the difference. -- Cheers, Kai ___ Full-Disclosure - We believe in it. Charter: http://lists.grok.org.uk/full-disclosure-charter.html Hosted and sponsored by Secunia - http://secunia.com/ ___ Full-Disclosure - We believe in it. Charter: http://lists.grok.org.uk/full-disclosure-charter.html Hosted and sponsored by Secunia - http://secunia.com/ Posting to /r/netsec now... ___ Full-Disclosure - We believe in it. Charter: http://lists.grok.org.uk/full-disclosure-charter.html Hosted and sponsored by Secunia - http://secunia.com/
Re: [Full-disclosure] when did piracy/theft become expression of freedom
On Fri, 27 Jan 2012 18:01:31 +0900, Robert Kim App and Facebook Marketing said: As a content producer... I can't stand this sense of entitlement... but oh well... I've just gotta tranform with the times i guess! You may want to talk to your fellow content producers - and even more importantly, certain content *restirction-of-distribution cartels* about *their* sense of entitlement. pgpsJsdFS4yFe.pgp Description: PGP signature ___ Full-Disclosure - We believe in it. Charter: http://lists.grok.org.uk/full-disclosure-charter.html Hosted and sponsored by Secunia - http://secunia.com/
Re: [Full-disclosure] when did piracy/theft become expression of freedom
You want to be very careful with that line of thought. You are taking the creator the rightful owners profits, which they are entitled to if it is a product they created to be sold. You are confusing what you want - with what the law states. Theft is typically very widely defined in the law, not just what the dictionary states. When you make a copy, you are performing a step that the manufacturer takes with physical products. Just because copying software is easy does not mean the laws are so cut and dried around what is theft and what is not. If you take something by making yourself a copy, when the producer is the only authorized authority to make copies then you have committed theft. You also cannot steal electricity, check out Abstracting Electricity, but bypassing the meter is wrong in most jurisdictions. In the US you can be arrested and charged for riding in a stolen car, even if you really didn't know it was stolen, known as taking without consent or TWOC. In some jurisdictions you can be arrested and charged for going equipped for burglary mean you have implements of the trade on you - crowbars, lock picks etc. So I suppose in the US we are fortunate that having a copy of some previously defined hacking tools on a computer in our possession will not get us arrested - yet. The more you know... From: full-disclosure-boun...@lists.grok.org.uk [mailto:full-disclosure-boun...@lists.grok.org.uk] On Behalf Of Laurelai Sent: Friday, January 27, 2012 12:51 AM To: full-disclosure@lists.grok.org.uk Subject: Re: [Full-disclosure] when did piracy/theft become expression of freedom On 1/27/2012 2:24 AM, Jerry dePriest wrote: im going to the 'benz dealer in the morning to express my 1st amendment right... The Somalians are learning the hard way that it just isnt so... bma ___ Full-Disclosure - We believe in it. Charter: http://lists.grok.org.uk/full-disclosure-charter.html Hosted and sponsored by Secunia - http://secunia.com/ Piracy: an act of robbery or criminal violence at sea Theft: the illegal taking of another person's property without that person's permission or consent with the intent to deprive the rightful owner of it Software copying: Occurs neither on the high seas and does not deprive the rightful owner of it. The more you know. ___ Full-Disclosure - We believe in it. Charter: http://lists.grok.org.uk/full-disclosure-charter.html Hosted and sponsored by Secunia - http://secunia.com/
Re: [Full-disclosure] when did piracy/theft become expression of freedom
On 1/27/2012 12:06 PM, Michael Schmidt wrote: You want to be very careful with that line of thought. You are taking the creator the rightful owners profits, which they are entitled to if it is a product they created to be sold. You are confusing what you want -- with what the law states. Theft is typically very widely defined in the law, not just what the dictionary states. When you make a copy, you are performing a step that the manufacturer takes with physical products. Just because copying software is easy does not mean the laws are so cut and dried around what is theft and what is not. If you take something by making yourself a copy, when the producer is the only authorized authority to make copies then you have committed theft. You also cannot steal electricity, check out Abstracting Electricity, but bypassing the meter is wrong in most jurisdictions. In the US you can be arrested and charged for riding in a stolen car, even if you really didn't know it was stolen, known as taking without consent or TWOC. In some jurisdictions you can be arrested and charged for going equipped for burglary mean you have implements of the trade on you -- crowbars, lock picks etc. So I suppose in the US we are fortunate that having a copy of some previously defined hacking tools on a computer in our possession will not get us arrested -- yet. The more you know... *From:*full-disclosure-boun...@lists.grok.org.uk [mailto:full-disclosure-boun...@lists.grok.org.uk] *On Behalf Of *Laurelai *Sent:* Friday, January 27, 2012 12:51 AM *To:* full-disclosure@lists.grok.org.uk *Subject:* Re: [Full-disclosure] when did piracy/theft become expression of freedom On 1/27/2012 2:24 AM, Jerry dePriest wrote: im going to the 'benz dealer in the morning to express my 1st amendment right... The Somalians are learning the hard way that it just isnt so... bma ___ Full-Disclosure - We believe in it. Charter: http://lists.grok.org.uk/full-disclosure-charter.html Hosted and sponsored by Secunia - http://secunia.com/ Piracy: an act of robbery or criminal violence at sea Theft: the illegal taking of another person's property without that person's permission or consent with the intent to deprive the rightful owner of it Software copying: Occurs neither on the high seas and does not deprive the rightful owner of it. The more you know. Yeah and the US is becoming a police state, so using US law as examples of morality is pretty shaky ground. ___ Full-Disclosure - We believe in it. Charter: http://lists.grok.org.uk/full-disclosure-charter.html Hosted and sponsored by Secunia - http://secunia.com/
Re: [Full-disclosure] when did piracy/theft become expression of freedom
On Fri, 27 Jan 2012 18:06:28 GMT, Michael Schmidt said: You want to be very careful with that line of thought. You are taking the creator the rightful owners profits, which they are entitled to if it is a product they created to be sold. You might want to go read Courtney Love Does The Math, and then ask yourself the following: 1) You can make a case that if you copy an album intead of buying it, you're depriving somebody of profits. But what if it's an album that you would *not* have bought at full price anyhow? Or one that you bought used (see first sale principle)? 2) Who gets those profits, the artist, the label, or the RIAA? Are you stealing profits from the artist, or are you stealing them from somebody else who was attemting to steal them from the artist? pgpfUxF0nZPpx.pgp Description: PGP signature ___ Full-Disclosure - We believe in it. Charter: http://lists.grok.org.uk/full-disclosure-charter.html Hosted and sponsored by Secunia - http://secunia.com/
Re: [Full-disclosure] when did piracy/theft become expression of freedom
-Original Message- From: full-disclosure-boun...@lists.grok.org.uk [mailto:full-disclosure- boun...@lists.grok.org.uk] On Behalf Of valdis.kletni...@vt.edu Sent: Friday, January 27, 2012 4:06 PM To: Michael Schmidt Cc: full-disclosure@lists.grok.org.uk Subject: Re: [Full-disclosure] when did piracy/theft become expression of freedom On Fri, 27 Jan 2012 18:06:28 GMT, Michael Schmidt said: You want to be very careful with that line of thought. You are taking the creator the rightful owners profits, which they are entitled to if it is a product they created to be sold. You might want to go read Courtney Love Does The Math, and then ask yourself the following: 1) You can make a case that if you copy an album intead of buying it, you're depriving somebody of profits. But what if it's an album that you would *not* have bought at full price anyhow? Or one that you bought used (see first sale principle)? These arguments do more harm than good. You can't base property law on what people may not have done (of course there are not paid your taxes etc - let's not get tied down with that). I'm actually surprised you made that comment. I have a product that I own the rights to. If you don't feel like paying full price, then don't buy it. You go down the street and buy a similar product for less money. That way I don't make money, and my competitor has. If this happens enough, I go out of business as an effect of how the market works. But if you were not going to pay full price, that doesn't give you any right to steal it. That is simply absurd. Now, many in the music industry have openly stated (I've heard anyway) that internet piracy is good for business. People hear music they wouldn't have heard, and buy the album. I've done this myself, and I agree with it. But whether or not the behavior ends up benefiting the industry or not is irrelevant; I've still broken the law. That's where is should end, but it doesn't. Sharing music not purchased is already illegal. The companies already have legal remedies available. Unfortunately, the industry lobbyists have convinced lawmakers that the action already being illegal isn't enough - they now want the legislative body to ENFORCE the law for them by giving execution rights to the plaintiff. That is freaking nuts. What should happen is that those who do not innovate in music distribution and rights management pay to see the legal process through. Then we're back to the first example where they would end up spending too much money on legal fees and go out of business where the guys who figure out a cool DRM scheme for sampling, sharing, etc end up making money, and the market takes care of its own. It's far easier and cheaper to get inept and ignorant legislators to extend judgment into enforcement with new laws. 2) Who gets those profits, the artist, the label, or the RIAA? Are you stealing profits from the artist, or are you stealing them from somebody else who was attemting to steal them from the artist? The fun begins when the record companies start sniping each other. Remember when The Verve got their pants sued of by the Rolling Stones copyright holder for Bittersweet Symphony? It was a clean cut case of copyright infringement. What if SOPA or the next round of it does pass - will ABKCO Records legally be able to get Hut Records entire web site shut down? The main point here is that legal remedy for property rights already exists, and the holders of those rights should be required to exercise due process just like everyone else. t ___ Full-Disclosure - We believe in it. Charter: http://lists.grok.org.uk/full-disclosure-charter.html Hosted and sponsored by Secunia - http://secunia.com/
Re: [Full-disclosure] when did piracy/theft become expression of freedom
On Jan 27, 2012 4:07 PM, valdis.kletni...@vt.edu wrote: On Fri, 27 Jan 2012 18:06:28 GMT, Michael Schmidt said: You want to be very careful with that line of thought. You are taking the creator the rightful owners profits, which they are entitled to if it is a product they created to be sold. You might want to go read Courtney Love Does The Math, and then ask yourself the following: 1) You can make a case that if you copy an album intead of buying it, you're depriving somebody of profits. But what if it's an album that you would *not* have bought at full price anyhow? Or one that you bought used (see first sale principle)? If you buy an album used, the seller generally loses possession of it, you gain possession of it at a reduced cost, and the original purchase still gave the original seller and producer value. Value has still been exchanged, assuming no literal theft was involved to make the whole thing criminal anyway. If you make a copy, you're pretty much creating (or, if you prefer, *re*-creating) value out of basically nothing using source material, but nothing of value goes back to the original creator of what was copied. Besides that, I do not trust customers to make their own price up for everything they buy because (a) they may be honest but not know how to properly appraise a piece of work or (b) they will try to shaft you. It's literally like blindly trusting user input. Before you bring up Humble, Radiohead, et al: just because it can and has been done a few times doesn't mean it's viable or as lucrative as it should be. (Humble even STILL had pirates, IIRC!) 2) Who gets those profits, the artist, the label, or the RIAA? Are you stealing profits from the artist, or are you stealing them from somebody else who was attemting to steal them from the artist? All of the above; while the companies' creative accounting is almost criminally bullshit, the artist *still* gets a cut and even a profit if they do well enough. As a nasty little bonus, any profit taken from those companies will never, ever be seen by the artist regardless. There is a 100% better chance of an artist receiving money via a record company getting paid for the artist's work than a record company *not* getting paid from the artist's work. It's gotta come from somewhere. So if you're screwing them and they're screwing the artist, you just wind up making them screw the artist that much harder. ___ Full-Disclosure - We believe in it. Charter: http://lists.grok.org.uk/full-disclosure-charter.html Hosted and sponsored by Secunia - http://secunia.com/ ___ Full-Disclosure - We believe in it. Charter: http://lists.grok.org.uk/full-disclosure-charter.html Hosted and sponsored by Secunia - http://secunia.com/
