The new Drug War is the War on Piracy

[Dark_Angers]

Check out this video about piracy. Very very interesting

<embed id="VideoPlayback" src="http://video.google.com/googleplayer.swf?docid=-6483543718966313073&hl=en&fs=true" style="width:400px;height:326px" allowFullScreen="true" allowScriptAccess="always" type="application/x-shockwave-flash"> </embed>


http://video.google.com/videoplay?do...irates+dillema

[EbencoyE]

Originally Posted by IGOTJOINTS4YA

Pirated media is bad, in most cases those companies spent millions to make that media or get it advertised, and you steal it. That is just like any kind of theft, it is wrong.

good to them for enforcing copyright laws.

Well I guess we know what industry you work in. One that technology has deemed worthless and is piggybacking on the government to keep profits up.

[EbencoyE]

Originally Posted by Buzzard

All I'm saying is that I try to support the artist so they can continue to make music. Families don't play into it for me. I would buy a Ziggy Marley album to keep him making music but I'm not going to buy a Bob album to support Ziggy.

Get what I mean?



Believe it or not copyright law try's to extend that far.

Contrary to popular belief, artists don't need labels and record companies to continue to make their music. If they could do it in the first place, then they have the ability to keep doing it most likely. And usually it just gets easier. Even WITHOUT a label.

One of my best friends runs an independent underground non-profit label and the bands he works with have no problem touring the world and getting by even with their music available for free to anyone that wants it online and no major record company corrupting the government to protect their products.

Music is an art. Support the artists, not the corporations. When I download music I look at it as punishment to the artist for selling out. But I still like them so I'll listen to them.

[Penelope420]

Originally Posted by Dark_Angers

As I see copyright it should be for giving credit to the creator. What I mean is, so someone can't come along and say they took the picture when you did. This is what copyright should be and only be. In Spain this is how copyright is looked at.

That's not what copyright law is. Copyright law is to prevent people from distributing and profiting on other people's work. It's not about getting credit. A credit line doesn't pay my bills. It's about protecting artist's rights. Get it... Copy. Rights.

Same is true for a CD player or TV the artist got paid already for their work why should people pay twice. If I buy a CD I should be able to do what I want with it I paid money for it. Example, if I buy a loaf of bread and give it out for free, and the baker tries to come around and collect money from everyone eating the bread nobody would listen to the baker. It is an absurd thing of the baker to do,

Sorry, but again, that's not how copyright law works. And thank fucking god it doesn't work that way, because I would have been out of business a long time ago.

You can't compare a loaf of bread to a book or a CD. If you buy a book you own the right to read that specific copy of the work, but you don't own the words and phrases in the book. If you buy a poster, you own the piece of paper that poster is printed on, you do not own the rights to the art on that poster. That belongs solely to the creator of the work (and possibly the publisher). If you want a book or a CD or a poster that you can do whatever you want with, then MAKE YOUR OWN. Don't take it from someone else.

__________________________________________________ _______________________________
“I’ll say it for the hundredth time: If I buy a book and read it, and then give you the book to read, I have broken no laws. Why is that not true for all media?” - Michael Moore

Michael Moore is a tard. You can buy a CD, and then give a that copy of your CD to a friend, but you can't MAKE COPIES of that CD to distribute. The law is exactly the same for books.

Also the amount of time a recording staying in copyright is bullshit. The artist should plan like anyone else for retirement. Why should they get money once they stop working? In the new age it should be if they want more money when they are old they should have toured more when they were young.

So let's talk about a tangible object. Let's say I design and build a wooden cabinet. Don't I have the right to pass it down to my family?

Why should a song be any different? Why do you think YOU have more rights to that song then the person who created it in the first place?

A person who spends a life time creating music, has the right to pass the rights to that music on to his/her children. That's the beauty of creating copyrighted work, it can continue to earn money for you long after you've stopped working. If you don't like that, then create your own copyrighted work, and collect the royalties yourself, rather then stealing it from someone else.

We've become such an entitled society that just because something is out there, it's MINE! I want free books, and free music, and free art, BECAUSE I CAN, DAMMIT! Fuck the artists who are creating this stuff for me to enjoy in the first place!

[IGOTJOINTS4YA]

Originally Posted by EbencoyE

Contrary to popular belief, artists don't need labels and record companies to continue to make their music. If they could do it in the first place, then they have the ability to keep doing it most likely. And usually it just gets easier. Even WITHOUT a label.

One of my best friends runs an independent underground non-profit label and the bands he works with have no problem touring the world and getting by even with their music available for free to anyone that wants it online and no major record company corrupting the government to protect their products.

Music is an art. Support the artists, not the corporations. When I download music I look at it as punishment to the artist for selling out. But I still like them so I'll listen to them.

I'm sure this label works through myspace, and does sets up really good gigs for the musicians through small concert halls and gynasiums. This is America we like Lapalooza and Oz-fest so GTFO.

[Dark_Angers]

Originally Posted by Penelope420

That's not what copyright law is. Copyright law is to prevent people from distributing and profiting on other people's work. It's not about getting credit. A credit line doesn't pay my bills. It's about protecting artist's rights. Get it... Copy. Rights.

I know how copyright law functions and what it is. This is how I think copyright should be seen. Copyright should be just so people can't steal your ideas meaning can't claim them as their own.

Michael Moore is a tard. You can buy a CD, and then give a that copy of your CD to a friend, but you can't MAKE COPIES of that CD to distribute. The law is exactly the same for books.

The CD giving it to a friend could be viewed as infringement in the eyes of the RIAA. There was a article that talked about it briefly, but I can't find it.

create your own copyrighted work, and collect the royalties yourself, rather then stealing it from someone else.

Again copying is not stealing. The artist still has the original.

Do you have a problem with remixes? Often times people who make music remixes get sued by an artist they use in their remix. It is a new work of art why should the first artist get money for something they did not create?

That's the beauty of creating copyrighted work, it can continue to earn money for you long after you've stopped working

Why should artist get paid for past work? Do construction workers continue to get paid for as long as the building stands? No. They get paid for the time they worked, and once they finish work the pay stops.

-----------------------------
A painter can earn money through his painting while still giving it away for free. People who enjoy his/her art can pay the painter to give a lecture, or maybe teach a class. There are ways to make money while still giving away the product away for free.

Just look at linux completely free yet there are still businesses that make money off of it. How do they make money off of a free product? They sell support for the product, and give assistance using it.

As an artist you could think of your music as a way to advertise. The more people who listen to the music(advertisement) the more merchandise you will sell, and more concerts will be offered to you. Looking at it this way file sharing is the ultimate in free advertising.

Just look at rap artist they have gotten the idea. Many of the biggest rap artist own clothing lines. They use their music to promote this. Look at 50 cent he owns G-Unit Clothing Co, MIA Launched Okley Run Retro Hip-Hop Clothing Line, Russell Simmons founded Phat Farm, Jay Z launched Rocawear, Sean P Diddy Combs launched his Sean John line. These artist are getting the idea that the times are changing, and are adapting to it rather then fighting it.

[IGOTJOINTS4YA]

Dark Angers, you still do not understand the copyright laws still, when you create new music or media, you invented something, a copyright is like a patent on that material, and the coping of that material is theft of that patent issued issued to that material.

If I copied the windshield wiper and starting giving them away, the person that own that patent on the windshield wiper could sue me because they created that tool.

[Dark_Angers]

Originally Posted by IGOTJOINTS4YA

Dark Angers, you still do not understand the copyright laws still, when you create new music or media, you invented something, a copyright is like a patent on that material, and the coping of that material is theft of that patent issued issued to that material.

If I copied the windshield wiper and starting giving them away, the person that own that patent on the windshield wiper could sue me because they created that tool.

Clearly you don't under stand copyright law. Please read up on it.

technically, file sharing is not theft.

A number of years ago, the U.S. Supreme Court dealt with a man named Dowling, who sold "pirated" Elvis Presley recordings, and was prosecuted for the Interstate Transportation of Stolen Property. The Supremes did not condone his actions, but did make it clear that it was not "theft" -- but technically "infringement" of the copyright of the Presley estate, and therefore copyright law, and not anti-theft statutes, had to be invoked.

So "copying" is not "stealing" but can be "infringing." That doesn't have the same sound bite quality as Valente's position.

Complicated matters further, copying is not always infringing. If the work is not copyrighted, if you have a license to make the copy, or if the work is in the public domain, you can copy at will. Also, not all "copies" are the same. Say you buy a CD and play it on your computer -- technically, you have already made a "copy" onto the PC in the process of playing it, but that's not an infringement.

Making an archive copy is okay too, as long as your retain the original. What about a transformative copy -- say, making an MP3 out of a CD? You can do that, so long as you retain the original work. If the original CD get scratched, damaged or lost, you can probably burn the MP3 back to a CD (sans the really "sucky" titles), but this is not entirely clear.

So the RIAA and MPAA's claims that all "copying" is "stealing" are much overhyped.

But so too are the claims some swappers make that, simply because I bought a particular CD at some time in the past (or really, really thought about buying it), I now have the inherent right to share it with all my friends (even the ones I have never met in Singapore, Malaysia and Eastern Europe).

Fair and Unfair Use
The RIAA and MPAA also claim that if I download a song that I don't own, it's an infringement. This too is not always the case. The law recognizes that many uses of copyrighted works -- even without the permission of the copyright holder -- are not an infringement. While there is no "right" as such to make a fair use, the making of such a use is not an infringement.

Thus, if you make copies for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research, it is not an infringement of the copyright, even if the copyright holder does not want you to do so.

This isn't black and white, of course. In deciding whether a use is fair or not, courts will consider a number of factors: Did you make the copies for commercial purposes? Does the copy deprive the copyright holder of revenues? Did you copy all, or substantially all, of the work, or just a small portion? The less of the work copied, the less commercial and the less impact on the copyrighted work, the more likely it is to be considered "fair."

So when you sing "Happy Birthday" to your mom, you don't owe a royalty to Mildred and Patty Smith Hill (they own the copyright), but when it is performed in a movie, you do see a credit roll.

http://www.securityfocus.com/columnists/175

So I say it again COPYING IS NOT STEALING AND IS NOT THEFT!!!