k1pp3r said:and no different than tivo
Not in the eyes of the law. Time shifting for personal use is well-defined to be okay; it's explicitly mentioned in the Betamax case and in the fair-use statues.
File sharing is at best a grey area.
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
k1pp3r said:and no different than tivo
mikeblas said:I can't give much credibility to Sander Sassen. His essays are some of the least insightful that I've ever read in the technology field.
Meanwhile: nope, I'm not in the recording industry.
I've written a few books and a lot of magazine articles, though. The book was very blatantly plagiarized, and frequently had its entire content posted to the web (from the CD that was included with the book). As a result, I have a strong interest in intellectual property law, and I'm very interested in the seeing good protection for the work of copyright owners.
Have you ever published anything, Elios? Anything that people would pay to see, or want to buy? Most people haven't. As a result, the large majority of people don't udnerstand what goes into producing even something that looks "simple" or "small", or seems "easy".
They end up thinking that almost everything should be free for the taking, since they don't understand what effort, luck, and skill goes into producing something of value.
mikeblas said:I can't give much credibility to Sander Sassen. His essays are some of the least insightful that I've ever read in the technology field.
Meanwhile: nope, I'm not in the recording industry.
I've written a few books and a lot of magazine articles, though. The book was very blatantly plagiarized, and frequently had its entire content posted to the web (from the CD that was included with the book). As a result, I have a strong interest in intellectual property law, and I'm very interested in the seeing good protection for the work of copyright owners.
Have you ever published anything, Elios? Anything that people would pay to see, or want to buy? Most people haven't. As a result, the large majority of people don't udnerstand what goes into producing even something that looks "simple" or "small", or seems "easy".
They end up thinking that almost everything should be free for the taking, since they don't understand what effort, luck, and skill goes into producing something of value.
Elios said:now i never said every thing [sic] should be free but there are some "fair use" issues around
Elios said:im sick and tired of all these ppl that think just becouse you didnt pay for it and you have that you should be sued in the ground
Elios said:for one
your friend tapes program A. off tv you miss he lends you the tape/DVD or what ever
i see no harm in this
Elios said:2. getting shows from other markits ie i know people that like anime and would like to watch shows from Japan now i see no harm in some on encodeing the show and putting on the net for free
mikeblas said:It's hard for me to believe that you don't understand why this is wrong. But I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and explain it.
The performers, artists, directors, writers, producers, enginers, and everyone else who worked on those shows deserve to get paid. They get paid from advertising revenue, paid for by the advertising that the show sold when it was on television. (Or, paid for by the subscription channel's revenues when it bought rights to air the show.)
If someone captures the show and redistributes it in another market without the permission of owner of the copyright, they're infringing on that copyright. Holding a copyright means that you completely control the redistribution and reproduction of the work; it's yours. By copying the work around, you're short-circuiting that right.
Redistributing the work causes damages to the copyright holder in several ways. Perhaps the copies (or even the original capture the distributed copies were created from) is technically inferior; that inferior work still identifies the character, and the character identifies the creator and production house. Now, intentionally or not, inferior work might become associated with the creator or the production house.
Perhaps it was the plan of the copyright holder to market and sell discs in the new market. Lots of shows do this; you can get the whole season on DVD a few months after it aired. They'll lose profits, both directly and consequentially, because of the file trading. Preempting their decision is ethically pompous, regardless of what the law says.
Any of these marketing efforts would bring more income to the producer of the material being copied, and therefore takes potential earnings away from a variety of disciplines involved in the creative, technical, and publishing processes.
Can you really not understand that? Or is it just that you somehow disagree with the premise that people who work to produce desireable content should not be compensated for their work?
acascianelli said:What is the difference between streamripping all my favorite shoutcast servers and just downloading my favorite songs from p2p...
Elios said:effectivly nothing
acascianelli said:Then effectively isnt every shoutcast server a source of pirating...Why doesnt the RIAA go after them too?
Elios said:
Fansubs violate copyrights
We have to admit it: the distribution of fansubs is technically a violation of copyright under the WTO TRIPS agreement.
Elios said:http://riaalawsuits.us/elektra_santangelo/transcript050506.txt
the RIAA and MPAA out of control this link just porves it even the judge thinks the RIAA is out of line
Elios said:you need to get your head out of your ass
Elios said:and see the MPAA and RIAA are just trying to make money in a failing business model and are just looking to point a finger at some one any one thay have SUED KIDS and now are sueing some lady for some thing she most likely didnt do just to make a point
Elios said:you have yet to prove that any one ACTLY AFFECTED BY THE infringment is actly seeing the money from the lawsuits and untill i see this ill i will keep my positon that the MPAA and RIAA just want to fill there own pockets
mikeblas said:Sorry, but I don't understand why I need to prove that.
mikeblas said:Isn't every commercial entity trying to make money? I mean, the RIAA isn't representing a bunch of non-profit organizations, are they?
Do you think that the RIAA is trying to make money from the lawsuits? They're not -- they almost always settle out of cuort for amounts amounts that barely cover their legal fees.
I think the point of their action is to draw attention to the widespread misappropriation of intellectual property. Even if that isn't their intent, that's what is happening, and I applaud them for having at least that much of an impact.
I3roknI3ottle said:all this sueing from people like the MPAA or RIAA is crap. I thnk to myself often on reason's why people share music/movies or download them. Yes some of these people are cheap asses and just dont wanna spend the few bucks to get something in life.
I3roknI3ottle said:One reason I cant stand going to the movies is the blatant overcharges. $7+ USD for a ticket to the movies. Wow i get to watch it on a HUGE screen, but if I need to goto the bathroom or wanna get a refill I have to getup and miss parts of the movie. Then I have to deal with the people in the movie theater, the ones that smell or leave there cellphones on, or bring there 1 year old kid in and it starts crying and they dont want to get up and take it in the hallway and get it to quiet down. Before the movie started, I went to get some popcorn and when I asked her how big a small bag of popcorn would be she showed me a bag no taller then 5-6 inches and no wider then 3-4 inches, for $3 USD.. WTF!?
I3roknI3ottle said:Then theres the overpricing of cd's... I cannot stand when I purchase a cd and it has 10+ songs on and it and theres SKITS on it. I'm paying for something thats enjoyable too listen too, not to hear some gay skit u put on the cd cuz u didnt want to take the time to make a few extra songs. I've only purchased a few cd's in my entire life,
Eminem: Marshall Mathers LP - 18 total tracks - 4 being skits...
Linkin Park: Reanimation - 20 total tracks - 3 skits and 1 opening thats 1 minute long.
Bone Thugs N Harmony: Greatest Hits - 24 total tracks - 0 SKITS, WORTH MY GODDAMN $$$.
I dont find listenign to someones voicemail or someone's phone conversation enjoyable. So why do these artist put this crap on there cd's. Then some artist just put blatant crap songs on there cd's and only 1 or 2 of the songs are actually worth listening too.
I3roknI3ottle said:I've got more but im tired and just got off work, so i really cant thnk. When I remember my other comments/rave's ill post em