StarDestroyer.Net BBS

how about downloading out of print sci-fi from the Baen archives website?

RedImperator wrote:

General Zod wrote:

Zablorg wrote: Anyways, it's stealing in the loosest sense of the word because you are not giving the producers of the movie the money you would have given them had you bought them the normal way.

That's very poorly thought out reasoning. By that logic, libraries are stealing because the money is otherwise not going to the creators of the item that's being checked out.

That analogy doesn't hold, because libraries lend out a physical copy of the book for a limited time, not create a new copy and give it away. Try to make a photocopy of an entire book and see how the library--or the publisher--responds.

Let's not swing too far the other way here: piracy is acquiring a product someone else created without compensating the creator. It's stealing. Just because everyone does it, or the RIAA (and MPAA to a lesser extent) are assholes doesn't change that.

By that logic, remembering something is theft too.

RedImperator wrote:

General Zod wrote:

Zablorg wrote: Anyways, it's stealing in the loosest sense of the word because you are not giving the producers of the movie the money you would have given them had you bought them the normal way.

That's very poorly thought out reasoning. By that logic, libraries are stealing because the money is otherwise not going to the creators of the item that's being checked out.

That analogy doesn't hold, because libraries lend out a physical copy of the book for a limited time, not create a new copy and give it away. Try to make a photocopy of an entire book and see how the library--or the publisher--responds.

Let's not swing too far the other way here: piracy is acquiring a product someone else created without compensating the creator. It's stealing. Just because everyone does it, or the RIAA (and MPAA to a lesser extent) are assholes doesn't change that.

People shouldn't try to equate IP copying to other kinds of crimes, because it isn't a direct analogy to theft either. It's a unique kind of activity, and deserves to be treated as such. Painting it as a direct analogue for theft is no more valid than saying that it is a complete non-offense.

I'd love to know though, what the stance on photographic memory and copyright is? Surely, by remembering something completely you're committing infringement same as you would by making another copy for your own personal use.

how about downloading out of print sci-fi from the Baen archives website?

Isn't Baen itself putting that stuff up? I shouldn't think that was illegal, since the copyright owner is giving it away free of charge.

Psychic_Sandwich wrote:

how about downloading out of print sci-fi from the Baen archives website?

Isn't Baen itself putting that stuff up? I shouldn't think that was illegal, since the copyright owner is giving it away free of charge.

You'd be amazed, the RIAA try to collect royalties on songs that are released by independent bands too.

RedImperator wrote: That analogy doesn't hold, because libraries lend out a physical copy of the book for a limited time, not create a new copy and give it away. Try to make a photocopy of an entire book and see how the library--or the publisher--responds.

So what? My point wasn't to suggest comparing IP theft to libraries was analogous, my point was to show that Zablorg's definition was terrible under its premise of "taking away sales the creator would have otherwise received".

General Zod wrote:

RedImperator wrote: That analogy doesn't hold, because libraries lend out a physical copy of the book for a limited time, not create a new copy and give it away. Try to make a photocopy of an entire book and see how the library--or the publisher--responds.

So what? My point wasn't to suggest comparing IP theft to libraries was analogous, my point was to show that Zablorg's definition was terrible under its premise of "taking away sales the creator would have otherwise received".

Isn't that the only way that IP theft becomes a crime? I mean, if I make a duplicate of a DVD nothing's actually been stolen. All that's gone missing from the creator is the opportunity to make money from his creation.

So, yes, your argument is correct that libraries do this all the time, but I think that we can agree that they're a notable exception to that rule.

SCRawl wrote: So, yes, your argument is correct that libraries do this all the time, but I think that we can agree that they're a notable exception to that rule.

Radio and TV stations do this too. If someone hears a song on the radio and they don't like it, or watches a movie that they thought sucked, they're sure as fuck not going to buy a copy themselves.

General Zod wrote:

SCRawl wrote: So, yes, your argument is correct that libraries do this all the time, but I think that we can agree that they're a notable exception to that rule.

Radio and TV stations do this too. If someone hears a song on the radio and they don't like it, or watches a movie that they thought sucked, they're sure as fuck not going to buy a copy themselves.

These media pay for those rights, though, on an individual per-use basis. One presumes that the potential negative consequences (with respect to sales) of broadcast material are taken into account by rights holders who set the prices, or are at least sufficiently offset by the benefits.

SCRawl wrote: These media pay for those rights, though, on an individual per-use basis. One presumes that the potential negative consequences (with respect to sales) of broadcast material are taken into account by rights holders who set the prices, or are at least sufficiently offset by the benefits.

Which changes the fact that the companies creating the content lose sales every time someone sees something on TV for free and decides not to buy it. . .how?

General Zod wrote:

SCRawl wrote: These media pay for those rights, though, on an individual per-use basis. One presumes that the potential negative consequences (with respect to sales) of broadcast material are taken into account by rights holders who set the prices, or are at least sufficiently offset by the benefits.

Which changes the fact that the companies creating the content lose sales every time someone sees something on TV for free and decides not to buy it. . .how?

It doesn't change that fact. But if the right to broadcast that content has been paid for, it's not relevant.

How would one find those movie download sites anyhow? It doesn't strike me as the sort of thing one could find on google.

Pretty easily, Zablorg. A movie download site is most often just a torrent site. Google, say, "Star Wars Torrent" and isoHunt comes up in first place.

Idle question: what happens if someone is targeted by the RIAA, and simply tries to ignore it? Does it move from a civil to a criminal matter? Does the judge summarily rule against the defendant?

Molyneux wrote:Idle question: what happens if someone is targeted by the RIAA, and simply tries to ignore it? Does it move from a civil to a criminal matter? Does the judge summarily rule against the defendant?

Well the plaintiff has to try several times to serve the defendant notice of the suit. If the plaintiff cannot be served, or does not respond to being served notice after 30 days, then the plaintiff can petition for a default judgment (this is not allowed in certain kinds of suits, but it would be allowed for the shit the RIAA sues over). In a default judgment the plantiff fills out a bunch of paperwork laying out there position, and they must ask for a specific amount of monetary damages. The judge then can decide to rule in the plaintiffs favor or not, and can award up to but not more then the monetary damages requested in the paperwork.

Course, even at that point the plaintiffs may still have no way of collecting on those damages, and might have to return to court repeatedly to begin the process of seizing the defendants known assets. This can take years, and the reality is that even in lawsuits which aren’t ignored the plaintiff often never sees any money because it’s so hard to force someone to pay. That wouldn’t be much of an issue for the RIAA though, since collecting money is irrelevant to them, it’s all about rule through fear.

Keevan_Colton wrote:

Psychic_Sandwich wrote:

how about downloading out of print sci-fi from the Baen archives website?

Isn't Baen itself putting that stuff up? I shouldn't think that was illegal, since the copyright owner is giving it away free of charge.

You'd be amazed, the RIAA try to collect royalties on songs that are released by independent bands too.

yup, not to mention they fined one guy for selling foreign music at a swap meet. yes bands not hosted on an american label, and whose music can't even be played on US radio, because the music glorifies an outlaw culture, and defiance of US laws.*

*To be exact Mariachi Narco Outlaw Ballads

Also their statement on the DMR is that any douplication of any information via a computer is an infringement on their copywrites. So when I took pictures of my back yard here in yosemite, and posted them on the web I was essentially stealing from them, because I didn't get their fucking permission. despite being the person who took the fucking picture in the first place....

General Zod wrote:

Napoleon the Clown wrote:The RIAA can get fucked.



What happens when they sue somebody that decides to play the race or disability card and the person wins, counter suing for billions? That'd be fucking hilarious.


Or people ignore them and judges automatically throw out their cases and tell them where to go, how to get there, and where they should keep their vegetables on the way.

They've sued dead people. Why would they stop at disabilities?

I never said they would stop at people with disabilities. I just stated it would be amusing if someone they went after that happened to have a disability managed to bullshit their way into it being discriminatory actions based on their disability. RIAA vs ADA, Round 1: FIGHT!


(I am being mostly a smartass here, though I really would like to see someone manage to counter sue the RIAA for ridiculous sums of money and win.)



In any event, the RIAA doens't seem to do jack when it comes to stuff that the copyright holder offers for free. When it hits public domain the RIAA can't touch it either. A surprising number of musicians are starting to distance themselves as much as possible from the asshattery. Hell, Weird Al outright mocked them on his newest CD.

One would think that the greedy little men in the recording industry would realize that what they're doing is worse for their income than letting people share music. The artists who do that seem to be doing just fine on their record sales, after all.

hell they've even sent cease and desist notices' to Ytube for taking part in NIN's viral marketing.

Zablorg wrote:How does piracy fund terrorists?

Anyways, it's stealing in the loosest sense of the word because you are not giving the producers of the movie the money you would have given them had you bought them the normal way.

Of course, this MP3 thing has nothing to do with piracy, simply because you already have the music.

Its referring to the possibility that criminal organisations, which may gain funds from selling pirated copies may transfer funds to terrorist organisations.

You know, similar to how charities or moneylenders who lend money to the poor are funding terror.......

There's no need for evidence, just the MERE possibility of them doing so= proof! Ditto to drugs, smugglers and illegal immigrants.

PainRack wrote:

Zablorg wrote:How does piracy fund terrorists?

Anyways, it's stealing in the loosest sense of the word because you are not giving the producers of the movie the money you would have given them had you bought them the normal way.

Of course, this MP3 thing has nothing to do with piracy, simply because you already have the music.

Its referring to the possibility that criminal organisations, which may gain funds from selling pirated copies may transfer funds to terrorist organisations.

You know, similar to how charities or moneylenders who lend money to the poor are funding terror.......

There's no need for evidence, just the MERE possibility of them doing so= proof! Ditto to drugs, smugglers and illegal immigrants.

So...if you download pirated copies instead of buying pirated copies, you're denying (possible) money to people who could transfer funds to terrorist organisations...

So downloading pirated copies helps fight terrorism!

I wanted to make a commercial showing people with SUV's and newly engaged couples in a simular light to that bullshit drugs=terrorism

I helped a child kill and rape other children, and it's the happiest day of my life.

Dear RIAA:



Sincerely,

Everybody else

In a future of neurological implants that could store data, it probably would become a crime to remember things with it.

Regarding the arguement about piracy in this thread...

The argument is if people copy content freely the producers can no longer remain profitable. So people should pitch in and buy their stuff instead of freely copying a friends copy. Now should not paying content producers be a voluntary act of benovalence ? Asking people to support an industry by force is nothing but extortion !