Peace out, e-thuggin....
09-30-2010, 02:27 PM
#16
No actually it is quite clear if you know copyright/intellectual property law, If you share copyrighted material without the copyright holder's consent, you are breaking the law, thats all there is to it. Sharing copyrighted material over the internet/local network does not fall under private/personal use, and if theres any confusion the law always sides with the copyright holder.
Sorry, but the only gray area is with people who dont know the law and think they can make some hypothetical situation to justify file sharing. I can pass along some boring legal reads on the matter if your really interested.
Sorry, but the only gray area is with people who dont know the law and think they can make some hypothetical situation to justify file sharing. I can pass along some boring legal reads on the matter if your really interested.
I'll add a hypothetical situation though that isnt likely but very meaningful to engineers in this space; playing a song for your friend over the phone, is that illegal? should the state get involved in it? what if you recorded the song on your voicemail and listened later? does the quality of the recording matter?
you're only thinking of the issue from the perspective of content creators and their current distribution models, there are many other stakeholders you're ignoring when presenting the issues like this. The entertainment industry has spent alot of money conditioning you to look at the issue from their perspective. they arent suing ppl because they just want to scare you, they want you to see them as victims to new communications technologies, thats their way of raising awareness. this is not a simple cut and dry issue, and theres good reason many questions have been left unresolved, and none of them include teenieboppers getting their justin beiber fix without spending mom and dads money.
09-30-2010, 03:58 PM
#18
VIP Member
iTrader: (7)
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Stockholm
Posts: 7,441
Car Info: 2018 Golf R Variant
Maybe Im just getting old, but Im starting to realize theres a whole generation of Americans that have grown up now that dont remember a time before the internet and actually have to be reminded that, no, the internet is not the ****ing Matrix, breaking the law is breaking the law and, surprise! youre going to be held accountable. 
09-30-2010, 05:00 PM
#19
Yeah, You've Probably Never Heard Of Me.
iTrader: (21)
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: in a glass case of emotion.
Posts: 17,962
Car Info: 345/30/19s
theres nothing clear cut in this matter, if it were, we wouldnt need new laws; and none of the situations i've brought up are hypothetical or far fetched, they are all real life situations many people you know engage in all the time. its just a matter of where you want to draw the lines, what kind of implication that has for communications, and the real world effect it will have on the evolution of our technologies going forward.
I'll add a hypothetical situation though that isnt likely but very meaningful to engineers in this space; playing a song for your friend over the phone, is that illegal? should the state get involved in it? what if you recorded the song on your voicemail and listened later? does the quality of the recording matter?
you're only thinking of the issue from the perspective of content creators and their current distribution models, there are many other stakeholders you're ignoring when presenting the issues like this. The entertainment industry has spent alot of money conditioning you to look at the issue from their perspective. they arent suing ppl because they just want to scare you, they want you to see them as victims to new communications technologies, thats their way of raising awareness. this is not a simple cut and dry issue, and theres good reason many questions have been left unresolved, and none of them include teenieboppers getting their justin beiber fix without spending mom and dads money.
I'll add a hypothetical situation though that isnt likely but very meaningful to engineers in this space; playing a song for your friend over the phone, is that illegal? should the state get involved in it? what if you recorded the song on your voicemail and listened later? does the quality of the recording matter?
you're only thinking of the issue from the perspective of content creators and their current distribution models, there are many other stakeholders you're ignoring when presenting the issues like this. The entertainment industry has spent alot of money conditioning you to look at the issue from their perspective. they arent suing ppl because they just want to scare you, they want you to see them as victims to new communications technologies, thats their way of raising awareness. this is not a simple cut and dry issue, and theres good reason many questions have been left unresolved, and none of them include teenieboppers getting their justin beiber fix without spending mom and dads money.
You misunderstood what I wrote.
I know those are all real situations, and all of those real situations are really against the law. The "Hypothetical" I was speaking of was in reference to the hypothetical "thousand new ways" to get around the law, theres never been a loophole or any legal gray area to get around exsisting laws, theres just ways people have been able to continue to violate copyright laws until they inevitably get caught or lose their court battle. And yes, as absurd as it sound, playing a song for your friend over the phone does not fall under private/personal use. Are they going to come after you for that? Of course they're not. Would they care? Of course they dont. But you cant extrapolate that to mean that its ok to distribute without their permission to anyone on the internet. That like saying one day you noticed your neighbor planted some flowers a foot onto your side of the lawn and because you didnt say anything about it the next day he builds a guest house on your lawn and lets his friends move in. Well hey, you didnt say anything about the flowers!!
C'mon, dont be ridiculous.
Keep in mind all your doing is licensing the music/movie/software. If you bought a copy of Call of Duty you dont own Call of Duty, Activision owns it, your just licensing it thats why they all come with an EULA (End User License Agreement) And its only for your own personal/private use.
Theres really nothing new about any of this, why do you think for years you've hear "Any Rebroadcast, Retransmission, or Account of this Game, without the Express Written Consent of Major League Baseball, is Prohibited." These laws have been the same for YEARS, its just not till the age of the internet and digital duplication was it possible for people to steal intellectual property on such a massive scale.
And also, you brought up that I was only thinking of the issue from the perspective of content creators and their current distribution models, which Im actually doing the opposite. Im trying to point out the individual value of the IP itself, since most consumers cannot grasp the concept of something non-physical having any value. Before the internet when we all had to buy physical copies of music/movies/software people wrongly put the value on the physical copy they had, since people were able to get music/movies/software without buying a physical copy of it, it took away the value of it so they dont feel wrong stealing something that to them doesnt really have value.
Ugh, I can go on about this for a while, I have a friend here thats does copywrite law for a software company so I hear all about it. The programmers there work their *** off 50-60 hour weeks for for peanuts just to have their **** stolen, it sucks
09-30-2010, 05:00 PM
#20
Registered User
iTrader: (13)
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Sunnyvale, CA
Posts: 1,035
Car Info: 02 WRX Wagon
@rugmonkey:
People know when they are breaking the law, they just choose to ignore it because there are (usually) no repercussions. If you paid for a copy of someone's music YOU have the right to listen to it. Not your friends, not your mother, YOU are the owner of that license. That license probably came with restrictions on what you could do with it.
Just because you don't know the rules doesn't mean they aren't there.
We need new laws because we invent new ways to get around them. Production companies want their money and they will have laws passed to make sure they get it.
People know when they are breaking the law, they just choose to ignore it because there are (usually) no repercussions. If you paid for a copy of someone's music YOU have the right to listen to it. Not your friends, not your mother, YOU are the owner of that license. That license probably came with restrictions on what you could do with it.
Just because you don't know the rules doesn't mean they aren't there.
We need new laws because we invent new ways to get around them. Production companies want their money and they will have laws passed to make sure they get it.
09-30-2010, 05:49 PM
#21
@rugmonkey:
People know when they are breaking the law, they just choose to ignore it because there are (usually) no repercussions. If you paid for a copy of someone's music YOU have the right to listen to it. Not your friends, not your mother, YOU are the owner of that license. That license probably came with restrictions on what you could do with it.
Just because you don't know the rules doesn't mean they aren't there.
We need new laws because we invent new ways to get around them. Production companies want their money and they will have laws passed to make sure they get it.
People know when they are breaking the law, they just choose to ignore it because there are (usually) no repercussions. If you paid for a copy of someone's music YOU have the right to listen to it. Not your friends, not your mother, YOU are the owner of that license. That license probably came with restrictions on what you could do with it.
Just because you don't know the rules doesn't mean they aren't there.
We need new laws because we invent new ways to get around them. Production companies want their money and they will have laws passed to make sure they get it.
Content creators have waged a pretty powerful and effective campaign to try and blurr these lines, but its to our benefit as individuals to clearly distinguish. You're claiming that nothing has changed by pointing out disclaimers made by content creators during broadcasts, or distribution control mechanisms such as EULAs; but these distribution models are broken, and the future is being shaped as we speak.
The kind of regulations that are being introduced/pushed right now by content creators in order to preserve these antiquated distribution models will both hinder technical inovation and personal freedoms. By buying to the idea that these copyright holders need legislative protection at the expense our our individual freedoms, you are creating an environment of apathy towards critical rights the free world is founded upon. should the post office be allowed to open a package you sent a friend if they think it may have copyrighted material in it?
if a few songs, dvds, games, sw programs are being pirated so that our collective freedoms are well preserved then so be it. This issue is way bigger than it seems, you cannot allow copyright holders to hijack the discussion just so their revenue streams are protected from innovation. you want to see the future of IP use and distribution, look at bliazzard entertainment, google/gmail, and facebook; not sony-BMG, microsoft, and miramax.
09-30-2010, 06:05 PM
#22
Yeah, You've Probably Never Heard Of Me.
iTrader: (21)
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: in a glass case of emotion.
Posts: 17,962
Car Info: 345/30/19s
waitaminute, you do realize there is LEGAL digital distribution right? Ive bought many songs off iTunes and all my games off Steam for the last 2 years. Sorry if you think Ive been saying all of this because Ive been "brainwashed" by the music industry into just buying physical copies of music/movies/software, lol.
But this here is where you are incorrect.
Yes, copying and distributing copyrighted materials is and should be illegal.
This is the same as burning a bunch of copies of a cd and giving them to all your friends. Im not going to waste any more time trying to explain intellectual property to you. Bottom line is, if you file share whatever, I really dont care. But just be man enough to admit what your doing is stealing and your not some part of some big noble crusade to "protect our collective freedoms"!
C'mon
But this here is where you are incorrect.
But mixing up your rights to transfer data over any medium what so ever, should have nothing to do with the data itself that is being transferred, copyrighted or not.
This is the same as burning a bunch of copies of a cd and giving them to all your friends. Im not going to waste any more time trying to explain intellectual property to you. Bottom line is, if you file share whatever, I really dont care. But just be man enough to admit what your doing is stealing and your not some part of some big noble crusade to "protect our collective freedoms"!
C'mon
09-30-2010, 08:08 PM
#23
theres nothing noble in preserving my individual freedom as both a consumer and a developer, its to my great benefit to keep these rights intact. My issue is that those rights are being threatened b/c some 12 year old gets caught uploading his lady gaga collection to edonkey. If people have the mentality that regulation of our communication channels can be regulated so that copyright holder are protected, then we all lose freedom. when you are apathetic to legislation infringing on that freedom b/c "file sharing is wrong," then you are missing the big picture.
and btw, i am very much correct regarding the above quoted statement, and the progress we all expect to come from the success of the internet greatly depends on this. But I am glad you are able to see how significant that statement is, whether you agree with it or not.
and btw, i am very much correct regarding the above quoted statement, and the progress we all expect to come from the success of the internet greatly depends on this. But I am glad you are able to see how significant that statement is, whether you agree with it or not.
09-30-2010, 10:04 PM
#24
Yeah, You've Probably Never Heard Of Me.
iTrader: (21)
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: in a glass case of emotion.
Posts: 17,962
Car Info: 345/30/19s
theres nothing noble in preserving my individual freedom as both a consumer and a developer, its to my great benefit to keep these rights intact. My issue is that those rights are being threatened b/c some 12 year old gets caught uploading his lady gaga collection to edonkey. If people have the mentality that regulation of our communication channels can be regulated so that copyright holder are protected, then we all lose freedom. when you are apathetic to legislation infringing on that freedom b/c "file sharing is wrong," then you are missing the big picture.
and btw, i am very much correct regarding the above quoted statement, and the progress we all expect to come from the success of the internet greatly depends on this. But I am glad you are able to see how significant that statement is, whether you agree with it or not.
and btw, i am very much correct regarding the above quoted statement, and the progress we all expect to come from the success of the internet greatly depends on this. But I am glad you are able to see how significant that statement is, whether you agree with it or not.
10-01-2010, 11:05 AM
#26
VIP Member
iTrader: (7)
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Stockholm
Posts: 7,441
Car Info: 2018 Golf R Variant
Some people do not understand that it is not okay to steal, and try to use every new "loophole" or grey area to demonstrate, once again, that it's okay for them to duplicate/distribute copywritten material because they have just done it in this "new way" this time. Krinkov is trying to help.
Originally it was a discussion stating that because people are so stupid that there needs to be another law, CA is still a communist state or something.
I bet that even before toddlers had smartphones, it was illegal to impersonate someone for gain or harm. Even if you had to do it manually.
Unfortunately, it seems that when people do not see a specific law preventing them from doing a specific activity, even though common sense would clearly show that it was not okay based on existing laws or even.... Just common sense... They think that it is okay, for whatever reason, to do this activity. The reactive answer is more laws. This whole thing seems really stupid.
It's extra painful because I feel like I see both points... Having more laws that more specifically regulate each person's individual activities is not progress. But if people keep demonstrating clearly that they are essentially "witching for new laws" I am not sure how upset we can be that they keep appearing.
Take the cel phone in the car thing. Shouldn't that fall under "distracted driving" or even unsafe driving? Do we REALLY need a law that specifically says that you cannot use your mobile phone while driving? Does this mean that if someone is stupid enough to interpret this to mean that it's okay to use a laptop while driving because there is no specific rule preventing them from doing so that we need a specific law preventing people from using a laptop whilst driving? I hold my head in shame for our very existence as I say "probably yes."
Instead of whining about new laws, comparing our homeland to Communist states, why don't we try to do something about the stupid people? Probably because it's easier to feel elite/smart and whine than to figure out a solution for the problem or heaven forbid... Take action.
Which says a lot.
Originally it was a discussion stating that because people are so stupid that there needs to be another law, CA is still a communist state or something.
I bet that even before toddlers had smartphones, it was illegal to impersonate someone for gain or harm. Even if you had to do it manually.
Unfortunately, it seems that when people do not see a specific law preventing them from doing a specific activity, even though common sense would clearly show that it was not okay based on existing laws or even.... Just common sense... They think that it is okay, for whatever reason, to do this activity. The reactive answer is more laws. This whole thing seems really stupid.
It's extra painful because I feel like I see both points... Having more laws that more specifically regulate each person's individual activities is not progress. But if people keep demonstrating clearly that they are essentially "witching for new laws" I am not sure how upset we can be that they keep appearing.
Take the cel phone in the car thing. Shouldn't that fall under "distracted driving" or even unsafe driving? Do we REALLY need a law that specifically says that you cannot use your mobile phone while driving? Does this mean that if someone is stupid enough to interpret this to mean that it's okay to use a laptop while driving because there is no specific rule preventing them from doing so that we need a specific law preventing people from using a laptop whilst driving? I hold my head in shame for our very existence as I say "probably yes."
Instead of whining about new laws, comparing our homeland to Communist states, why don't we try to do something about the stupid people? Probably because it's easier to feel elite/smart and whine than to figure out a solution for the problem or heaven forbid... Take action.
Which says a lot.
10-01-2010, 11:55 AM
#27
Yeah, You've Probably Never Heard Of Me.
iTrader: (21)
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: in a glass case of emotion.
Posts: 17,962
Car Info: 345/30/19s
It's extra painful because I feel like I see both points... Having more laws that more specifically regulate each person's individual activities is not progress. But if people keep demonstrating clearly that they are essentially "witching for new laws" I am not sure how upset we can be that they keep appearing.
Unfortunately, it seems that when people do not see a specific law preventing them from doing a specific activity, even though common sense would clearly show that it was not okay based on existing laws or even.... Just common sense... They think that it is okay, for whatever reason, to do this activity. The reactive answer is more laws. This whole thing seems really stupid.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
Hatteroo
Sacramento & Reno
9
10-23-2005 11:18 PM