This Is Why I Pirate

I think this post of yours exemplifies how many people misunderstand copyright and fair use. Fair use is a tool that can be used ONLY in court. You can't claim fair use outside of a courtroom because you are conceding to (c) infringement.

That being said, copyright gives rights to the creator and no one else. If I write and record a song why should anyone else have any rights to it beside me? It's mine and no one else's.
 
Modred189 said:
I think this post of yours exemplifies how many people misunderstand copyright and fair use. Fair use is a tool that can be used ONLY in court. You can't claim fair use outside of a courtroom because you are conceding to (c) infringement.

That being said, copyright gives rights to the creator and no one else. If I write and record a song why should anyone else have any rights to it beside me? It's mine and no one else's.
Click to expand...

Yes. It gives the copyright holder(s) the rights...........to his/her/their work. What it doesn't due is give them carte blanche to do as they please, which would include infringing on the rights of others (which is what they want to do with SOPA and PIPA) and/or engaging in unfair business practices, and that's been my point all along.

This isn't just about fair use. What you seem to misunderstand is that there is more to this than the rights of the copyright holders. Like I said, other people have rights, too.
 
True, but given the context of the conversation, those other people's rights have to be viewed in light of the copyright.

I'm not sure anyone has a right that trumps a copyright. A copyright is a property right, and property rights are some of the most hallowed in US law.
Since when does owning a copyright allow someone to participate in unfair business practices?
 
Lord Nassirbannipal said:
The entertainment industry controls every channel and medium of distribution, so if you want to be recognized and make it, then you have to go through them. The internet takes this power away because it's the only medium that they don't control. Anyone can put their music, movies, games, and software online and get the recognition that they want. No longer are people limited to artist/movie/game/software du jour. The internet gives people access to any media that they want and not just what the industry has decided will be popular. The entertainment industry has known for a long time that digital distribution was going to be big. It's just that instead of adapting, they want to make sure that their content is the only thing that's available so that they can maintain an archaic business model.
Click to expand...

Bravo
 
Modred189 said:
True, but given the context of the conversation, those other people's rights have to be viewed in light of the copyright.

I'm not sure anyone has a right that trumps a copyright. A copyright is a property right, and property rights are some of the most hallowed in US law.
Since when does owning a copyright allow someone to participate in unfair business practices?
Click to expand...

I'm pretty sure that guaranteed rights in the US Constitution, such as the right to due process, would trump statutory rights given to a copyright holder, unless you're suggesting that we should now look at the Bill of Rights in light of copyright laws.

Copyrights allow a company to engage in unfair business practices when they use it to keep competition out of the market, which is exactly what SOPA and PIPA are designed to do. For example, when they can shut a site down on the mere accusation of copyright infringement with no proof or due process whatsoever. They also infringe upon those constitutional rights that I've been mentioning for the last several posts.
 
The entertainment industry knows full and well that unauthorized distribution and copying doesn't cost them anywhere near as much money as they rant and rave about. They simply want to expand copyright law so that they can monopolize the internet in the same way that they've monopolized radio and television. The internet allows for their competition to thrive because everyone has equal representation as it's not controlled by any one entity.
 
Lord Nassirbannipal said:
I'm pretty sure that guaranteed rights in the US Constitution, such as the right to due process, would trump statutory rights given to a copyright holder, unless you're suggesting that we should now look at the Bill of Rights in light of copyright laws.

Copyrights allow a company to engage in unfair business practices when they use it to keep competition out of the market, which is exactly what SOPA and PIPA are designed to do. For example, when they can shut a site down on the mere accusation of copyright infringement with no proof or due process whatsoever. They also infringe upon those constitutional rights that I've been mentioning for the last several posts.
Click to expand...

You do realize that copyright (like patents) ARE in the constitution? Article I Section 8 Clause 8 I believe. So, they are both constitutional rights. And Due process implies that something is being taken away without due process (not an absolute right, mind you). If you are talking about fair use, there is no right to fair use, so the user has nothing to be taken away unconstitutionally under either the 5th or 14th amendment due process clauses. There is o right to display or distrubute anything.

Now, don't get me wrong, I think SOPA and PIPA are losers, and that's why they failed. But OPEN, which I do support, is basiclly the same thing w.o the DNS provision and with some judicial review before a whole site is taken down.
 
Modred189 said:
You do realize that copyright (like patents) ARE in the constitution? Article I Section 8 Clause 8 I believe. So, they are both constitutional rights. And Due process implies that something is being taken away without due process (not an absolute right, mind you). If you are talking about fair use, there is no right to fair use, so the user has nothing to be taken away unconstitutionally under either the 5th or 14th amendment due process clauses. There is o right to display or distrubute anything.

Now, don't get me wrong, I think SOPA and PIPA are losers, and that's why they failed. But OPEN, which I do support, is basiclly the same thing w.o the DNS provision and with some judicial review before a whole site is taken down.
Click to expand...


Please get past the fair use thing.

Due process is in the Bill of Rights, which are inalienable rights that are guaranteed to every citizen and CANNOT be taken away or trumped regardless of what copyright law or any other law says. I don't see anything in the Bill of Rights regarding copyright. Even though its in the constitution, it can still be amended or repealed, which isn't true of the Bill of Rights.

You need to get over this idea that copyright law gives a copyright holder carte blanche to do as he or she pleases. It doesn't work that way. No one is arguing that copyrights and patents don't give exclusive rights to the holder to distribute, etc; however, 1) there are already laws in place that address this, and 2) that's not the only thing going on with this issue, and it really doesn't help the case of the companies who want to pass laws like SOPA, PIPA, and other atrocious legislation which would indeed directly deprive citizens of their right to due process. Copyrights and patents were created for the facilitation and advancement of the useful arts and sciences, but instead, the entertainment industry wants to use them for the purposes of furthering a monopoly and creating barriers to entry.

You need to look at my previous example and realize that copyright holders aren't the only ones who have rights.
 
Lord Nassirbannipal said:
Please get past the fair use thing.

Due process is in the Bill of Rights, which are inalienable rights that are guaranteed to every citizen and CANNOT be taken away or trumped regardless of what copyright law or any other law says. I don't see anything in the Bill of Rights regarding copyright. Even though its in the constitution, it can still be amended or repealed, which isn't true of the Bill of Rights.

You need to get over this idea that copyright law gives a copyright holder carte blanche to do as he or she pleases. It doesn't work that way. No one is arguing that copyrights and patents don't give exclusive rights to the holder to distribute, etc; however, 1) there are already laws in place that address this, and 2) that's not the only thing going on with this issue, and it really doesn't help the case of the companies who want to pass laws like SOPA, PIPA, and other atrocious legislation which would indeed directly deprive citizens of their right to due process. Copyrights and patents were created for the facilitation and advancement of the useful arts and sciences, but instead, the entertainment industry wants to use them for the purposes of furthering a monopoly and creating barriers to entry.

You need to look at my previous example and realize that copyright holders aren't the only ones who have rights.
Click to expand...
Ok, A: The bill of rights is made up of AMENDMENTS. They can be repealed or amended at any time like any other amendment. Like, say the 18th.

B: The Bill of Rights is not absolute. Shoot, for a long time, we didn't even apply them to the states. Furthermore, until 2010, we didn't even know for sure if the 2nd amendment applied to the states (Google McDonald v. Chicago). Additionally, the bill of rights are indeed limited all the time. The first amendment only applies to the STATE limiting your speech. Individual parties can do it as much as they want (think NDAs). Also, consider libel and slander; both are limitations on your right of free speech.
Even the due process clause is not absolute. The state can absolutely take things away from you with little or no process.
Again, I agree with you that there should be some process in the case of SOPA/PIPA and related legislation in terms of judicial review. However, in order for a state action to call the 5th or 14th due process clauses into effect, there must be some deprivation of life, liberty or property. Making a website take down a allegedly infringing work does none of this. The individual maker of that work has no interest in that copy or that display. Due process is NOT an issue here, legally. Ethically/morally/common-sensically it might be the RIGHT choice to have some judicial prerequisites, but there is no legal need. There are no RIGHTS of the alleged infringer at issue.
 
Modred189 said:
Really? :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

Yea, really. What makes you think these media publishers are any better than a black slave owner? They are the same scum just living in a different time period. Human nature does not change, my friend.
 
When the purpose of selling your goods boils down to shafting the last pennies out of consumers, consumers wil find a way to shaft you back.

Greedy fuckers, good riddance to your MASSIVELY OVERDONE profit strategy...... it's clearly not doing so well is it, you fat cat lazy fuck investor dbags? Labor = how you earn $, now lawsuits and screwing people who put the pennies into your pocket every day........
 
Yobbles said:
Yea, really. What makes you think these media publishers are any better than a black slave owner? They are the same scum just living in a different time period. Human nature does not change, my friend.
Click to expand...

Just look at the MegaUpload video that was taken down. UMG got the video taken down because they believed they had the right to tell those artists what they could and could not say. If that doesn't scream "We own you", I don't know what does.
 
Yobbles said:
Yea, really. What makes you think these media publishers are any better than a black slave owner? They are the same scum just living in a different time period. Human nature does not change, my friend.
Click to expand...
So you're equating the media companies' efforts to enforce their RIGHTS to the enslavement of an entire race? Not sure I see the similarities there.

BTW, does this count as fulfillment of Godwin's law?
wizdum said:
Just look at the MegaUpload video that was taken down. UMG got the video taken down because they believed they had the right to tell those artists what they could and could not say. If that doesn't scream "We own you", I don't know what does.
Click to expand...
Except in the artist's case, they agreed to the control as opposed to forced slavery.

Fail.
 
Modred189 said:
So you're equating the media companies' efforts to enforce their RIGHTS to the enslavement of an entire race? Not sure I see the similarities there.

BTW, does this count as fulfillment of Godwin's law?

Except in the artist's case, they agreed to the control as opposed to forced slavery.

Fail.
Click to expand...

You can't sign away your rights to free speech, at least not in the US. You would have a point if UMG was producing the video, but since they were not attached to it, they had no right to tell those artists that they couldn't support MegaUpload.

"Fail."

Your logic is frightening, is copyright-ism some sort of new religion or something? All hail the mighty media corporations, the bringers of light, money, and swift punishment.
 
wizdum said:
You can't sign away your rights to free speech, at least not in the US.
Click to expand...

What do you think a non-disclosure agreement is? You agree not to talk about something.
What about where it is ILLEGAL to talk, like in regards to insider trading and SEC enforcement?

When it involves private parties, like Universal/UMG, there is NO freedom of speech.
 
Modred189 said:
What do you think a non-disclosure agreement is? You agree not to talk about something.
What about where it is ILLEGAL to talk, like in regards to insider trading and SEC enforcement?

When it involves private parties, like Universal/UMG, there is NO freedom of speech.
Click to expand...

Now you're really grasping. NDAs have to be for specific things, and cover what you cannot talk about. They don't apply here. A company can say they will fire you if you publicly talk bad about them and support a competitor, but they can't have your speech removed.

Insider trading rules do not ban you from speaking, they ban you from profiting from your knowledge, or allowing someone else to profit from it. NDAs are used to prevent people from talking about this specific thing that would allow the profiting to occur.

Maybe UMG some mega-psychic foresight and got all their artists to sign NDAs that stated that the artists aren't allowed to say that they use MegaUpload in a commercial made by MegaUpload. I really doubt it though.

I give your response 1 half-ass out of 10.
 
An NDA limits your speech. A contract agreement that says "we own any songs you make" limits your speech as well.
So in the US, you CAN sign away your right to free speech.
 
Modred189 said:
Ok, A: The bill of rights is made up of AMENDMENTS. They can be repealed or amended at any time like any other amendment. Like, say the 18th.

B: The Bill of Rights is not absolute. Shoot, for a long time, we didn't even apply them to the states. Furthermore, until 2010, we didn't even know for sure if the 2nd amendment applied to the states (Google McDonald v. Chicago). Additionally, the bill of rights are indeed limited all the time. The first amendment only applies to the STATE limiting your speech. Individual parties can do it as much as they want (think NDAs). Also, consider libel and slander; both are limitations on your right of free speech.
Even the due process clause is not absolute. The state can absolutely take things away from you with little or no process.
Again, I agree with you that there should be some process in the case of SOPA/PIPA and related legislation in terms of judicial review. However, in order for a state action to call the 5th or 14th due process clauses into effect, there must be some deprivation of life, liberty or property. Making a website take down a allegedly infringing work does none of this. The individual maker of that work has no interest in that copy or that display. Due process is NOT an issue here, legally. Ethically/morally/common-sensically it might be the RIGHT choice to have some judicial prerequisites, but there is no legal need. There are no RIGHTS of the alleged infringer at issue.
Click to expand...

Wizdum pretty much covered this, but laws against slander and libel do not limit your right to free speech, at least not in the way that you're suggesting. If I say something slanderous against you, then you can sue me for it in civil court, but my speech would not be censored or removed. I would simply have to pay out damages for having said/written it provided that you could prove your case.

Making a website take down an allegedly infringing work (the key word here being allegedly meaning that nothing has been proven yet) does violate due process. Last time I checked, the burden of proof was on the party who's making the accusation. Notice how with MegaUpload, and investigation had to be done, evidence had to be gathered and submitted to a judge to obtain a warrant. The entertainment industry is pushing for laws liek SOPA and PIPA by using the same mentality that you are, which is that copyrights should just supercede everything else. They don't want to be required to investigate or gather evidence or go through the proper legal channels. They want to simply be able to shut down an entire site on a mere accusation of infringement. How would you like it if you were running a business and someone could simply claim that it was a front for illegal activities and have it shut down later that day without so much as an investigation?
 
Modred189 said:
An NDA limits your speech. A contract agreement that says "we own any songs you make" limits your speech as well.
So in the US, you CAN sign away your right to free speech.
Click to expand...

It doesn't limit your speech because the speech can't be removed or censored. It would only allow the company to terminate your employment or seek damages in civil court.
 
Modred189 said:
Ok, A: The bill of rights is made up of AMENDMENTS. They can be repealed or amended at any time like any other amendment. Like, say the 18th.

B: The Bill of Rights is not absolute. Shoot, for a long time, we didn't even apply them to the states. Furthermore, until 2010, we didn't even know for sure if the 2nd amendment applied to the states (Google McDonald v. Chicago). Additionally, the bill of rights are indeed limited all the time. The first amendment only applies to the STATE limiting your speech. Individual parties can do it as much as they want (think NDAs). Also, consider libel and slander; both are limitations on your right of free speech.
Even the due process clause is not absolute. The state can absolutely take things away from you with little or no process.
Again, I agree with you that there should be some process in the case of SOPA/PIPA and related legislation in terms of judicial review. However, in order for a state action to call the 5th or 14th due process clauses into effect, there must be some deprivation of life, liberty or property. Making a website take down a allegedly infringing work does none of this. The individual maker of that work has no interest in that copy or that display. Due process is NOT an issue here, legally. Ethically/morally/common-sensically it might be the RIGHT choice to have some judicial prerequisites, but there is no legal need. There are no RIGHTS of the alleged infringer at issue.
Click to expand...

Get over yourself, you don't know the slightest thing about constitutional law. This is a technology forum, and the topic is why you pirate.

You can't see it from all the way up on your high horse, but you're giving carte blanche to an entire industry to fuck you if you just accept all the bullshit (required third-party software, DRM, removal of functionality, etc) going on in the gaming and software industry.

Individual software developers are free to accept or reject these trends in the industry. I choose, as many others do, to boycott that software financially and enjoy it through pirating as a big fuck-you to those that--literally--buy into it.
 
wabbitseason said:
Get over yourself, you don't know the slightest thing about constitutional law.
Click to expand...
Aw... Don't be mad I proved you wrong. :rolleyes:
wabbitseason said:
You can't see it from all the way up on your high horse, but you're giving carte blanche to an entire industry to fuck you if you just accept all the bullshit (required third-party software, DRM, removal of functionality, etc) going on in the gaming and software industry.
Click to expand...
That's right. It's their property and I have no problems AT ALL with their right to limit the use of that property as they see fit.
wabbitseason said:
Individual software developers are free to accept or reject these trends in the industry. I choose, as many others do, to boycott that software financially and enjoy it through pirating as a big fuck-you to those that--literally--buy into it.
Click to expand...
And this is where we differ. If I do not like a company's DRM or usage limitations, I speak with my wallet. i don't buy, or I buy at a steep discount.
I am, however, unwilling to act like a petulant child and pirate. Especially since that does more harm than good, since the more pirating that happens, the worse the DRM will get.
If you want to send a message, don't buy and don't pirate. Otherwise you're doing more harm than good to YOURSELF than anything else.
 
I pirated music because they stopped selling singles, and we had to buy 11 rotten songs to get the one we wanted. That wasn't fair. I purchased over 500 lp's, and over 1000 cd's. Mostly, to get one song from each of them. So now, when I pirate a new hit song, I delete one that stinks that the music companies decided I had to buy. That way, we end up even. In my opinion, anyway, and just like it was their opinion of what stuff was worth before, well, now it's mine that counts.
I pirated software because the vast majority of it doesn't do what it claims to do. I have lots of shelfware to prove it. When I buy a program that works the first time out, and works well, I pay for it, and you know what? I'm quite happy when it works out that way. But I try it first, because I've learned that most advertising is BS. If it doesn't work, needs to run all the time in the background, is predatory (takes over file types as it's own, or restarts itself to run automatically every time the computer is started), I won't pay for that.
I pirated movies that I cannot find elsewhere for a reasonable price. When I found out that American movie studios were selling their DVD's of current films in China for a few dollars, it was obvious they could make money at that price. Charging us $25 a copy was just price gouging, and that's unethical. Stop cheating people, and then you have a better chance of them not robbing you.
 
Honest question: What makes you think it's up to you to choose what constitutes an appropriate price before you are entitled to it for free?
 
Modred189 said:
That's right. It's their property and I have no problems AT ALL with their right to limit the use of that property as they see fit.
Click to expand...

Fine, have it your way. If we can limit the inalienable rights of the citizens that are in the Bill of Rights, then we can also limit the rights of copyright holders, especially when those rights are being used to monopolize an industry by engaging in de facto extortion by suing 12-year-olds and the elderly into submission and pass legislation that would give them teh ability to shut down something that they don't like on a mere allegation.

And this is where we differ. If I do not like a company's DRM or usage limitations, I speak with my wallet. i don't buy, or I buy at a steep discount.
I am, however, unwilling to act like a petulant child and pirate. Especially since that does more harm than good, since the more pirating that happens, the worse the DRM will get.
If you want to send a message, don't buy and don't pirate. Otherwise you're doing more harm than good to YOURSELF than anything else.
Click to expand...

Petulant children? Did it every occur to you that things like DRM only hurt the people who did actually take out their wallets to pay? Look at Securerom and Starforce. If you actually bought and paid for the games that included this crapware, then you had to suffer through the problems that it caused. If you went and torrented the games, then you didn't have to deal with any of it. If you buy a Blu-Ray, then you have to put up with retarded messages at the beginning of every movie which would include such shit as "YOU WOULDN'T STEAL A CAR, WOULD YOU?" or "PIRACY IS THE DEVIL, HOW CAN YOU SLEEP AT NIGHT???!!!" Well obviously, if you bought it, then you don't plan on doing those things, However, if you went and downloaded a rip, then you wouldn't have to look at that shit and you could just watch your movie.

Perhaps the industry should focus on providing a reasonably priced product that meets the demands of the people to whom they're marketing it instead of using copyrights to push horrible legislation, maintaining an antiquated business model that sucks from head to toe, and branding their core demographic as thieves and pirates when they don't want to go along with such an obvious ploy.
 
Sigh.........

Reminder:
Rule # (18) You will not discuss, suggest, engage, or encourage any ILLEGAL ACTIVITIES.

"Breaking any of the above listed forum rules can result in the loss of posting privileges and possible loss of your forum account. [H]ard|Forum also reserves the right to ban any user, at any time, and for any reason."

Refrain from the "hey, I pirate..."

You guys are going to get a good discussion locked.:rolleyes:
 
Modred189 said:
Honest question: What makes you think it's up to you to choose what constitutes an appropriate price before you are entitled to it for free?
Click to expand...

The free market. Things are only worth what people are willing to pay for them. If enough people stopped buying, the price would drop - or the item would stop being made.

Or.......you don't and just blame pirates, enact sweeping legislation to remove the rights of the masses, and win anyway.:rolleyes:
 
Modred189 said:
Honest question: What makes you think it's up to you to choose what constitutes an appropriate price before you are entitled to it for free?
Click to expand...

Whether or not people should or shouldn't get it for free is more of a moral argument, but it's the market that chooses what the appropriate price is (whether people go and obtain it another way is irrelevant because either way, they're not buying the product).
 
Lord Nassirbannipal said:
If we can limit the inalienable rights of the citizens that are in the Bill of Rights, then we can also limit the rights of copyright holders...
Click to expand...
I just don't understand this argument, and it keeps coming up. The rights granted in the Constitution (ANY of them) are not absolute. They all have limits, often imposed upon each other BY each other. So yes, someone's copyright over, say, a picture may limit your first amendment rights to that picture. Just as your first amendment rights can limit the copyright holder's rights to that picture.

What's your point?

The suits against old people and kids have nothing to do with that interplay at all. Either they infringed or they didn't. That's what the courts are there for to sort out.


Lord Nassirbannipal said:
Petulant children? Did it every occur to you that things like DRM only hurt the people who did actually take out their wallets to pay? Look at Securerom and Starforce. If you actually bought and paid for the games that included this crapware, then you had to suffer through the problems that it caused. If you went and torrented the games, then you didn't have to deal with any of it. If you buy a Blu-Ray, then you have to put up with retarded messages at the beginning of every movie which would include such shit as "YOU WOULDN'T STEAL A CAR, WOULD YOU?" or "PIRACY IS THE DEVIL, HOW CAN YOU SLEEP AT NIGHT???!!!" Well obviously, if you bought it, then you don't plan on doing those things, However, if you went and downloaded a rip, then you wouldn't have to look at that shit and you could just watch your movie.

Perhaps the industry should focus on providing a reasonably priced product that meets the demands of the people to whom they're marketing it instead of using copyrights to push horrible legislation, maintaining an antiquated business model that sucks from head to toe, and branding their core demographic as thieves and pirates when they don't want to go along with such an obvious ploy.
Click to expand...
Yes, I dealt with securom and starforce. And as a result I don't buy games with them installed, or I wait for a crazy deal and buy it then, if it's REALLY worth it. That way, I'm doing my part to send a message to the publishers that such DRM decreases the value of the title.
Only a petulant child sits there crying that the big mean company saddled their favorite game/movie/media with crappy drm and decides to pirate it instead.That's like being pissed off that there's too low a speed limit in your neighborhood so you purposefully ram a police car while speeding.
It's a game/movie/etc. If you cannot go without in order to send a message, then the issue is clearly not important enough to you, and all you want is a free ride.

Stop mooching and screwing everyone else with the fallout.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top