It certainly wouldn't be the first time something like this has happened, but the lawyers who are fighting the RIAA on behalf of one woman, say they've heard about another lawsuit (unfortunately, they don't provide any links to info about the lawsuit) on behalf of a woman who says she didn't even own a working computer at the time the RIAA claims she was a threat to the industry. Perhaps she was singing so loudly her neighbors could hear her.http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20051201/0112259_F.shtml

No surprise at all, but the RIAA has now launched their third set of lawsuits against those they accuse of copyright infringement for distributing works without the copyright owners permission via various file sharing services. The more interesting part of the article, though, is that the RIAA claims they're convincing people that downloading is illegal. They mention a recent study "showing 64 percent of Americans understand it is illegal to download music." That's nice... except for the fact that it isn't actually illegal to download music. It is most likely illegal to download certain pieces of music, but there's plenty of music out there that musicians want you to download and share. Of course, those musicians generally aren't supported by RIAA-member labels, so the RIAA couldn't care any less about them. Update: Also, according to this other article, among those who had a lawsuit filed against them in the last batch was a 79-year-old retiree who does not own a computer - who had to send a hand written note to the judge explaining that there must be some mistake.http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20031203/1326247_F.shtml

Is any comment needed?

Oh, okay, I will give mine. I don't believe everyone in RIAA is such an idiot. Perhaps they were idiots in suing someone who didn't even own a computer. But the "64% Americans understand downloading is illegal" thing looks like psychological, social enginery in the best tradition of Goebbels and Baghdad Bob. :p Not even blatant lying and disinformation is wrong when the holy profit is in danger. Thou shalt not stand in the way of profit.

Now they are going to show us they can sue us even if we don't own a computer. We probably shouldn't hum tunes anymore now...

They filed a lawsuit against a woman who does not even own a computer? Either they are really stupid, or just greedy and desperate.

I took a look into the RIAA earlier this year and it seems they are there only to stir up turmoil and make money while doing it... This is one way of getting quick cash, as far as I am concerned they are not fighting for a cause they are just dickheads trying to make money off of lies to record labels and musicians who are making music only for the money on those record labels to go advocate their anti-P2P policies(AHEM, Metallica, shame on you). Of course this isnt hard since there is obviously no money in it. But there are those who dont care at all... Take a Grateful Dead for example, you will never hear a word outta Phil Lesh or the Garcia family about Jerry's bootlegs getting swiped off the net. Thats why they allowed those damn bootlegs to be made. Either that or they were just too high to care...

[ December 03, 2005, 19:34: Message edited by: The Gatekeeper ]

Most big companies are just there for money, and they don't care about the people that they affect with their greed. If it were up to me, I would shut down those hugeass corporations, and make smaller, people-based companies that actually cared.

Yes, I've heard many educated people say that all the time, but theres no money in that... Our society exists on a slightly more versitile cycle than other countries due to how our government is run and that would completly blow it out of the water... The end of free enterprise sounds a lot like, the end of america...

The RIAA?!? I HATE THOSE BASTARDS!!! They're the ones who closed the wonderful AudioGalaxy!!!

To tell the truth, what they done doesen't surprise me the slightest. They're a ****ing bunch of *******s, if I dare to say so. Blech. Sooner or later they'll sue you for having music on your hard drive, even if it's ripped from your own personal CD stash... :rolleyes:

Oh yes, because any hacker could break in and steal the music and even your house visitors. You know, you shouldn't even have the CD stash in the open because someone who didn't pay for the CDs could listen to one when he's in your house. :rolleyes: And even if you paid for the exact same CD that's in your house, you still shouldn't listen to the song elsewhere. Buy another CD, you know. And one for your bedroom and one for the car and one for work.

Sooner or later they'll sue you for having music on your hard drive, even if it's ripped from your own personal CD stash... At which point they'll receive a judicial smackdown, due to the legal concept of fair use.

HAHAHA! Chev, I didn't knew you could be *THAT* sarcastic! You've been cranked up a few levels in my esteem! HAHAHA! :thumb:

And what about the possibility of a visitor carrying a recording device to steal the music?!?

Chev may have been sarcastic as far as mucic is concerned, but it's NOT a joke when it comes to computer software. It's the actual truth. You must buy a separate CD for every computer you own. Look at what MicroSoft did with Windows XP to ensure that's the case.

Nay, they allow you three computers per disc, I believe. At least on the Student and Teacher edition.

OK...I love chev...he's my brother in arms, but I have to disagree with him here. Piracy has to be stopped, and fast, if you ever want to enjoy BG3 or NWN3 on your PC. I costs a jillion bucks for a developer to make the next uber-wonderful PC game (whoops, did we just leave the door open for consoles?) and the fans of that game have to be willing to pay for it.

I know that I'm not alone when I say that I've had pirated versions of Call of Duty2 and Battlefield2 offered to me. I know someone who runs a server with CoD and BF2 copies running on it.

The only responsible choice is to say, "no thanks", whether it be the hot cd from band "X" or the kicka$$ new expansion from the world at war.

Look, it's like this. You can go to the bar of your choice, and assuming you're of legal age to begin with, they can offer you a world of drinks with impunity. The only time it becomes an issue is if you're apparently drunk.

Likewise, the download world is wide open. BUT if you download and store an item you have no otherwise right to...let the law have you (and, as it appears, they will).

Every individual is responsible for what they download and store on their hard drive. There are no excuses or alibis. A song, game or even a friggin cartoon is the property of the creator. Pay up, or there will be no creation in the next generation (as is evidenced by the current move of hip-hop music).

btw...if you wanna argue with me, you'll have to do it in court. ;)

Hacken Slash: I have trouble being in complete agreement with you, sadly. It would be excellent for those who make the stuff to get the money and thus be able to make more stuff - but it seems to me that the money is mostly getting raked in by publishers/record labels and generally we - the customers - lose.

I don't pirate (well, only individual songs at most), but I can totally understand looking at a $100 (AU) pricetag on a game and going '**** that, might as well download it', especially when you know that most of it is just being leeched off by the middlemen and high-ups in the company.

Also: 'Anyone who minds about piracy is full of ****. Anyone who pirates your game wasn’t going to buy it anyway!' - Warren Spector.
If you're pirating something that's not worth spending money that you otherwise wouldn't buy - I have no problem :)

It would be excellent for those who make the stuff to get the money and thus be able to make more stuff - but it seems to me that the money is mostly getting raked in by publishers/record labels and generally we - the customers - lose. So because they're not getting everything, they don't get anything? Would you stop buying milk at the grocery store because the farmers who actually produce it get next to nothing for it? No, they need our support as much as we can give, and at the same time they need us to push legislation for them to get more money. Same applies to the artists. Cutting them off completely because the record companies are greedy pr*cks isn't fair.

Here's a situation the people on this board might understand:
Dynaheir is a magical artist, evoking wondrous figurines that are beautiful to behold. But the gnoll record company is bleeding her dry (literally). Would you join with the litigator Minsc to defeat the evil gnolls and free Dynaheir from her slavery, or would you just walk by and get a black market stolen figurine from a shady halfling by the side of the road? I'd say Minsc has every right to beat you down if you refuse. :p

But if all you do is litigate, then Dynaheir will starve and die as the long judicial process continues. So the lesser evil of giving to the gnolls must be made for her to survive until your efforts are complete and she is free.

Yes, there are a number of problems with the scenario, but it comes close enough to the truth. Starving the artists because the record companies are evil is just stupid and misplaced. At the very least, be like Minsc, who has no money left to support Dynaheir, but helps as much as he can by pushing the legislation, fighting to free his favorite artist. Sign a petition, write a letter to a government official, join an anti-RIAA group (peaceful, of course); make a difference. Just griping about it and doing nothing to change it is :bs: .

Anti-RIAA Group?

!!!!ANARCHY!!!! Sweet, sweet ANARCHY! :banana:

:shake:

No, seriously, to follow-up on what the Big Cat said, I prefer to buy my stuff directly from the source (I.E Buying a band's CD, shirts, DVD or other gear at a show). I prefer to encourage the makers rather than fattening up corporations.

Starving the artists because the record companies are evil is just stupid and misplaced Yeah; please give me an example of an artist which is starving because of piracy ;) . I don't know if you noticed, but the most pirated works belongs to the most popular (and successful) artists. Actually, I would go as far as saying that if piracy of your work is a concern, you have made it as an artist :)

So, IMHO, arguments that piracy hurts artists and no new music/movies/games will be created are BS. It hurts somewhat the pockets of record companies, but not as much as they'd have you believe (come on, would you really have spent $20 on that movie if you'd not have been able to download it?).

[ December 29, 2005, 22:02: Message edited by: khaavern ]

One result of piracy is bands not getting signed unless they fit the 100% sure hit formula. The record companies take less and less chances. Of course piracy is only one factor in this, record company greed is another, but piracy sure isn't helping.

the most pirated works belongs to the most popular (and successful artists).And this was news to whom? It's mathematics and common sense. But it doesn't mean the less succesful artists *don't* get pirated. They're just hurt more by it.

This noble Robin Hood idea of downloading is crap. It's a way people use to justify the fact they don't want to spend money on something they can get for free. Why do people download illegally? Because they can.

I think is a real grey area. There are good arguments on both sides of the issue. I don't download music for free (aka stealing), but that is more because I don't really know how and I don't want any spyware. I'd rather go and buy a CD. But I can see the argument that you'd only pirate something you didn't really want enough to pay for in the first place - therefore the record company probably doesn't lose that many sales.

But I think it's silly to abuse the so-called 'middle-men' because they are still normal people doing a normal job. They're the people driving the trucks carrying the CDs to the shop, they're the teenagers working in the record shop, it's the guy who typeset the CD cover etc etc. And there is some grandmother somewhere who owns shares in the record company. Sure there are a few overpaid big wigs in there somewhere but don't use them to personify everyone else in between.

Well, HB, what you say would make sense if these middlemen would take somethink like 30% of the total revenue coming from a CD. But, if I am not mistaken, the fraction they take is more like 95%.

Moreover, why should we in fact pay the middlemen these days? the distribution of information is incredibly easy now (cheap, too). Artists could simply distribute the music on their website. Record stores are somewhat superfluous now (some people might prefer buying stuff from a record store, as opposed to the internet, but they'd probably be few enough that they'd support only a small number of such stores). So, they are not so useful as in the past, so they will disappear. Kind of tough, but this is how things work.

Of course, the record companies do some promotional stuff, which one could argue is useful (for the artist). Is this worth 95% of the price, though?

Ha! I understand that piracy hurts smaller, less known artists, and that's why I prefer to get my stuff directly from them. Call me an Indie, but I am a fervent mainstream hater. Hmm... that gives me a sudden urge to listen to Dying Fetus' "Pissing In The Mainstream"

:yot:

But as for M$... they're so rich that getting ****ed of 150 bucks is nothing. I own W2k, and no, I haven't paid for it. I don't intend to, either. And if that ends up getting my ass in trouble, then screw M$, I'm switching to Linux, or Unix, well, anything non-M$, basically.

end of :yot:

By middlemen I mean the big companies who abuse artists even more than pirates do. If anything's misplaced, that thing is.

If you pirate something you wouldn't otherwise buy, the artist doesn't lose any money, nor does the publisher or anyone. So are you starving them? Heheh, no. The most you could do would be to give up their music and/or programs or whatever. That still wouldn't fill their stomachs. :p

Besides, RIAA uses illegally modified version of Kazaa (Kazaa Lite) to track down people who share files. The idiots have actually lost a lawsuit over that and good for them. Funny thing how they speak about the legality of downloading they appear to be extreme legalists. But when it comes to stalking people and/or themselves using some software, rules suddenly become relative.

Which is why exactly? Because the only thing they give a damn about is money.

@Hacken Slash: If artists were paid more by publishers, there would be more artists and they would be more inclined to experiment rather than beat sequels to death. If publishers reduced prices, more people would buy the work. If they also put in price reduction the same amount of money they put in copy protection, they would sell more.

You know why piracy is on decline in Poland? Because the leading distributor has seriously cut prices and started replacing scratched disks at no cost other than delivery. Plus, the more games you buy, the more discount you get when buying other games. After some time, a little dated products end up in budget series. I actually own games I haven't played yet and I'm far from rich. :)

Just to add to HB's thoughts...piracy of music hurts the "little" people the worst. Even legal downloading has squeezed many out of working in the music industry...consider that pirated/downloaded music is just that...music. There's no cover art, no graphic design, no liner notes, no photographs, no packaging materials (am reminded of the "classic" Spinal Tap black albumn)...all in addition to the middle-men mentioned above.

As far as Microsoft is concerned...when you consider the years of development for an OS or a product like Office, along with the support and updates which will literally last for years, $150 bucks seems to be a fair price.

@chev
If artists were paid more by publishers, there would be more artists and they would be more inclined to experiment rather than beat sequels to death. ...just what we need...more, richer Michael Jacksons ;)

Oh dear, no, please... :shake: But record companies don't really deserve their huge share, I think. And especially software publishers.

As far as Microsoft is concerned...when you consider the years of development for an OS or a product like Office, along with the support and updates which will literally last for years, $150 bucks seems to be a fair price. True. When I bought my comp I bought that :bs: XP home, and it's such bull**** that I have uninstalled it. I paid for XP, when I'm not even using it, so getting a free copy of 2k seems a fair trade to me.

Damn, I had a whole bunch of stuff to say, but I forgot it as I kept on reading...


What I can remember: Aye, the people getting pirated are only the most popular and mainstream, and they are already rich enough. Does 50 cent need to go triple double platinum in one day and complain about losing a fraction of that money to piracy? No, he doesn't, but he does (note: I'm not sure if he actually does, just an example of a huge guy getting pirated)

You know why piracy is on decline in Poland? Because the leading distributor has seriously cut prices and started replacing scratched disks at no cost other than delivery. Plus, the more games you buy, the more discount you get when buying other games. Why can't America be smart and do something like that? Oh yeah, because we are greedy bastards. Heh, sorry about that, I can't believe I actually thought America could do something customer-friendly. I must stop living in a dream world.


I also like buying at shows, so I only pay 10 bucks for a CD... yes, the band only make 1 or 2 of those dollars, but its better than paying 15 dollars and having them make only 1 or 2.

Luckily for me, I don't like mainstream crap, so when I do spend money on a CD, small bands are being helped.

Urhmm, I can't remember what else I was going to say...

Aye, the people getting pirated are only the most popular and mainstream, and they are already rich enough.Correction: the most popular ones get pirated the most, but it's not *only* them who get pirated. They're just the ones who could shrug it off, being rich already. Smaller bands get pirated too, but they also face the possibility of getting sacked by their record company, when their record sales don't go high enough.

Hacken Slash wrote:
As far as Microsoft is concerned...when you consider the years of development for an OS or a product like Office, along with the support and updates which will literally last for years, $150 bucks seems to be a fair price. I think you don't get the real point here. MS started its business wanting to become a monopoly.
The same capabilities as an application has also OpenOffice which is free AND open source.
Difference between Linux/Unix and Windows?
The former are open source meaning that one can tamper the kernel (the source code and heart of the system) to fit his needs, while Windows have their source code locked and run things THEIR way period.
The former is more powerfull and equipped than the latter, yet it is still free because there are many people who eat their life in front of a computer typing because they feel that software should be kept free at some point. They rely entirely on the donations one makes. And if you are happy with what they made you can give them what you wish and that is IMHO fair.
Secondly all the distros of Linux are not free.
Yes, one can download a free version (which is fully functional and again more powerfull in all aspects from Windows) but there is also a full version (or Corporated many names exist) that costs no more than 90 EU (IIRC). Big difference isn't it?
Microsoft never relied on the home users, their income comes from the big clients (countries, companies etc). Secondly Gates knows that Windows lack the quality Linux has.
But he also made an OS that is easy to be used by someone that only knows point and click plus typing. Linux on the other hand requires a big devotion and spenting of time to make it fully and easily functioning, which is something that restrains most users from adopting such an OS.
On this, Gates places his hopes for monopoly.
If you are not computer junkie (or professional put the word you wish there) you can't easily work on Linux. That is true.
But if someone wishes to work in IT or any related area then he should switch from Windows to Linux as soon as possible IMHO.
Not that he should forget windows entirelly (after all number of web sources are compatible only to Windows or IE).
But the features Linux provides in terms of security, possibilities and many other aspects cannot be matched with Windows.
And one last thing, do you really believe that they work that hard? Because i've heard otherwise (xbox in every office and so on)
And if they do work that hard, then they do a lousy job since they are starting the updates and the patches only a month after it has been released for heavens sake.

And if they do work that hard, then they do a lousy job since they are starting the updates and the patches only a month after it has been released for heavens sake. Oh no. Don't you go blaming that on the programmers. :nono: That's Marketing's or Corporate's mistake of sending it out before it was ready. If you didn't see any patches for months on such a buggy product, then you can blame the programmers for being lazy. The simple truth is that programs will always have bugs, because people are not perfect. They can be found with testing and eliminated, but only if the testers are given enough time before the product is released. I can only imagine how hard Gates is working his programmers to both fix what's wrong with the current versions and make a new one (quick, quick, quick!) for profit.

I'm afraid i will disagree with you. After all there are numerous cases of software that its release date has been postponed due to that testing as you say.
No i don't blame the programmers entirely but please, i have seen a vast number of exploits coming out the very next day Microsoft has released it.
So someone has not done his job as well as he ought to.
And being a member of the IT world i know that testers are not the programmers.
So guess who is not doing his job.
And to tell the difference between Windows and Linux (which also has bugs but never so many) i have noticed that the open source software (everything) is being tested thoroughly and has to accomplish three RC (release canditate) states in order to be marked as stable.
In windows there is only one beta version which (mind this) is also locked and one who finds a bug can't determine what caused that anomaly.

I think people need to see the big picture and realize that we all benefit from the evil, giant, monopolistic corporations.

You may not buy Britney Spears CDs and you may not give a crap if her songs are pirated, but all that money she makes goes to pay the thousands of people employed as a result of her success (record company secretaries, make-up artists, limo drivers...). Those folks take their paycheck and buy groceries and gasoline and they pay your dad the dentist to get their teeth cleaned. Then your dad the dentist can afford to send you to Princeton and you can afford to buy a cup of coffee and a laptop (with a dual-boot Linux/Windows of course!) and download Rage Against the Machine songs for free, the whole while gnashing your teeth at the evil, monopolistic, corporate behemoth that is ruining your life. :rolleyes:

No offense, Sir Fink, but this is one of the most BS arguments I heard.

So you are saying that is okay that some entity (be it a corporation or a person) makes a large amount of money, deserved or not, because that money will trickle down. Well, how about this: is okay if someone robs a bank, because he'll spend the money, eventually (and, most probably, in the same manner as Brittney Spears, i.e. buying a lot of useless stuff :) )

The question is: how is it better for society to allocate its resources. It might try to enforce an artificial monopoly on some quantity which is easily available today (i.e., music) in order to keep some set of people living in the luxury they grew accustomed to, or it might use those resources in a more useful manner. Face it, there is no reason for big music companies to exist in the form they are today. They have been born to help with distributing music (which 50 years ago, was not a simple task). This can easily be done today by the artist himself.

Of course Sir fink you forget the fact that these people you mention (yes these employees not the authoritive heads) are being paid way less than they deserve, in order for the authoritive heads to take a fat paycheck every month plus a nice big bonus every year.
So i don't want even a penny of my money to go in the pocket of that manager, director, CEO. If someone could ensure me that everything i pay goes either to the artist or the simple employees then i would pay for every cd i buy.
Since noone can ensure me for that then i buy only what i really like (and that is not mainstream i assure you) and the rest comes the known way.
As for software i never had to buy OS. At the beginning i used cracked copies, afterwards due to my work i always have a valid licence of Windows OS for my house. But still, i say i prefer Linux over Windows and that is a fact that is being backed up by the arguments i made in the previous posts.

Heheh, if the company makes a surprise $10M more than expected, how much of it ends up in the limo driver's pocket? There are companies that hire people because they need them and pay the least they can get away with. There are companies that give honest terms so they have a stable and reliable base. And there are companies that actually give good terms to inspire loyalty and work zeal. Incidentally, this is also the order of frequency of appearance. :p

It's not like the easiest way is the most profitable, but people will still go for it. The easy and petty mean way. Shove millions of dollars in copy protection and copyright lobbying but never lever the prices by the same amount, which would actually be easier to enact but would require to give up on the petty meanness. :p Not to mention generally lowering the prices in order to make CDs more affordable so that more people would buy them. It costs to make the 1st CD, but the Nth thousand of CDs is just copying. It costs a couple of blank CD, a box and factory maintenance plus shipping. That does not add up to 50-60 bucks per game or movie or whatever, let alone what Windows or Office costs.

Then goes preventing back-up copies or transfer of used licenses, one copy per computer per person policy and the like. Ideally, publishers would love to make it so you couldn't lend your CDs to anyone even if you don't keep a copy for yourself or charge anything for it, so you couldn't make any back-up copies (and the better protection the crappier CDs, I guess, so you would surely need at least one replacement... oh, and no replacement of scratched disks, of course), so you had to buy their software when you buy hardware, so you had to buy a whole bundle instead of just one product... ideally, so you couldn't even buy a license but had to pay monthly bills.

Do I have to remind anyone that we've had artists for millennia but overblown copyright laws only for a couple of decades? And giant evil software and record corporations for about two decades? The biggest abominations are companies that have the only function of buying and selling "intellectual property" rights, far far removed from any author or inventor. When I see the word "franchise" referring to a computer game or book setting I like, I want to puke.

I'm sick of all the marketing. Gold, platinum, diamond editions. Limited editions. Intransferrable non-exclusive licenses... blaaah. Ads and commercial crap everywhere. Commercialised language. Everything being merchandise. Everyone being a trader of some sort. My dinner is almost on my shoes.

[ January 01, 2006, 17:49: Message edited by: chevalier ]

It costs to make the 1st CD, but the Nth thousand of CDs is just copying. It costs a couple of blank CD, a box and factory maintenance plus shipping. That does not add up to 50-60 bucks per game or movie or whatever, let alone what Windows or Office costs. Yes... Makes you kind of wonder why pretty much everyone except Electronic Arts (and it's not like Electronic Arts are making new and innovative games with their sportsgames and SIMS addons) of the big gaming companies are having huge economical problems. If it's all so cheap they should naturally be packing up tons of profit and none of them would be in the crap they are right now. It's also interesting that still gaming is on a firm rise among people. Of course PC gaming is declining and in console markets the console manufacturers are picking up huge licence costs for all games but piracy is a big thief especially in the PC business. I blame personally every one who illegally download PC games for the current crappy state that gaming is in. I know a LOT of people who have not bought a game in ten years and these people play games made by small companies like Paradox. It really makes me sick. Personally I don't think 50 euros is overprized for a game, if they are like Baldur's Gate you'll enjoy them for years to come, not a bad deal for 50 euros I would say.

Quite frankly I don't care much if you download anything that EA pushes out illegally, on principle it's wrong but it's not touching me in any way, but when you are downloading games from smaller companies you are stabbing them in the heart and working against them on their next project and then it starts to hurt me and that's when I start to get pissed.

Meh. I'm reading a lot of excuses for illegally downloading songs and software. "The CEOs are overpaid! The limo drivers are underpaid!" Deep down, I don't really give a crap either way. Download all the crap music you want, kids. But be honest with yourself at the end of the day and admit you're just too cheap to actually pay for it. No need to pretend to be some Little Red Book carrying hero of the proletariat. :rolleyes:

On the other hand, it's good you have the gut to admit you're a fan of the system as it is and don't give a damn either way so long as you're left alone instead of having your mouth full of holy private property, which would be quite disappointing. ;)

What about RIAA? Aren't they too cheap to use the original freeware Kazaa with all the ads, that they use the illegal Kazaa Lite? What about all the affairs with companies illegally snooping on people's hard drives, histories and the like? If we are to be champions of the law, we need to make it work in all directions. :)

Yes... Makes you kind of wonder why pretty much everyone except Electronic Arts (and it's not like Electronic Arts are making new and innovative games with their sportsgames and SIMS addons) of the big gaming companies are having huge economical problems. If it's all so cheap they should naturally be packing up tons of profit and none of them would be in the crap they are right now. It's also interesting that still gaming is on a firm rise among people. Of course PC gaming is declining and in console markets the console manufacturers are picking up huge licence costs for all games but piracy is a big thief especially in the PC business. I blame personally every one who illegally download PC games for the current crappy state that gaming is in. I know a LOT of people who have not bought a game in ten years and these people play games made by small companies like Paradox. It really makes me sick. Personally I don't think 50 euros is overprized for a game, if they are like Baldur's Gate you'll enjoy them for years to come, not a bad deal for 50 euros I would say.The idea is that reducing the price makes more people buy the product. Some vendors prefer to keep the price as high as possible and rely on advertising. Others place their bets on accessibility and reduce the price. Cutting copyright protection expenses should allow a greater reduction of prices, as well. The Polish distributor who does that isn't really a poor company and some of the games are really, really cheap, while nothing really costs more than 50 bucks unless it's Playstation or by Microsoft and heck, even Age of Empires 2 costs less than 40 bucks on a promo right after the release. From what I'm able to see, it looks like the company is growing and growing and the more promotional offers there are, and the more significant price cuts, the better the company is doing.

And I have no respect for companies that prevent you from making backup copies and give you the game on crappy CDs, while offering no replacement. That should be a felony and the person who consciously and willingly came up with that strategy (and I suspect the coincidence between copy protection / non-replacement and crappy CDs isn't always accidental) is worse than a thief in my eyes.

Meh. I'm reading a lot of excuses for illegally downloading songs and software. "The CEOs are overpaid! The limo drivers are underpaid!" Deep down, I don't really give a crap either way. Download all the crap music you want, kids. But be honest with yourself at the end of the day and admit you're just too cheap to actually pay for it. No need to pretend to be some Little Red Book carrying hero of the proletariat. [Roll Eyes] Sir Fink you miss the point again i think. Even a guy who is downloading music or software mostly pays for them too but at a reduced price.
The real problem with MS or SONY or the vast majority of companies that work in these two areas is different.
These companys sell to you a product that in fact is no better than the free alternatives you may acquire. In example for music i can tell you the opportunity one has to have a very good music library by just buying music magazines (that always come with a cd). You may pay the full price of a cd but you'll get more than the work of just one artist.
These companies are companies, with their boards of directors (and all higher ups) have one purpose only. Making loads of money. Simple as that.
But they exploit the work of few people to support mainly themselves, and afterwards the real contributors of their product quality, quantity and support.
I have allready told you that Linux and Open source software in general is not necessarily free. You have the opportunity to acquire a version of the software free but you can also either as a donation or in the form of payment a logical amount of money to acquire a more powerfull version of this software.
And the vast difference here is that even the tottaly free software is very close or equivalent or even better (here goes the majority) to Windows or Mac OS (not to name only MS products).
The only catch here is that you should have knowledge. Knowledge of what is, and knowledge how to pull it through. For music you should know what you like and how you can get it at a better price.
For software to have the knowledge to be more than point and click.
That is why i dislike MS. It is a good (since XP) OS that lacks a lot of essential stuff, and provides you a lot of useless stuff. And at the same time it takes away from you the power to control the way your system works, by just making everything for you.
Music companies do the same thing too. They promote music, and people, lifestyles that will keep them within a line they have designed. They don't care about quality of music anymore they just care about making money by manipulating the masses.
I know a score of bands, musicians, artists that have never gained recognition of their work (which is very good to excellent) during the lifetime in order to be greatly exploited right after their death, because they were not conformed to the picture companies wanted to have.
But when one is dead he can't speak, can he?
Not to mention the number of musicians that were talented and have shown excellent examples of art, that were buried by the companies due to their out of line (companies line) character.

Have you ever considered these facts?
Because noone ever said that i download my music/software because i am to cheap to buy. We are talking about paying what it worths and not what they say it worths.
Simple as that, nothing less nothing more.
I don't understand why i should pay that guy who is sitting all day with his cigar espresso and a beautyfull secretary to keep his knees warm all day long, doing nothing else other than having good time and "doing business" with the rest of his caste.

The problem is, Mithrantir, if you feel the price of an item is too high, you have two legal options:

1. negotiate for a better price (with the owner).
2. seek a different product that has a more competitive price.

Let me put your words into another circumstance...

"the price for diamonds was too high at the jewelers, so I bought mine from the fence in the back alley."

or, how about

"the price of a car was too high at the dealership, so I bought mine from a chop shop in Guadalahara."

Downloads that aren't supported by the owner of the software or media is no different than buying stolen goods. Sure the price is better...but did you get a receipt?

Bah... again making an argument against copyright infringement by replacing something intangible (like music) by some real object (like a car or diamond).

It does not work that way. Copying music is not stealing (no matter how much some keep saying that). By making a copy of anything, you do not deprieve somebody of something real. You might argue that you deprieve the music company of a potential sale. But the key term here is 'potential'. But then, again, how many would buy the music which the they download freely? Or, let's put it other way: if I decide not to go out to dinner this evening, I have deprieved a restaurant of a chance to get my money. So sue me :)

I am not saying making copies is legal in all cases... but then, that's mostly because the laws are screwed (or paid for by the interested parties, more probably).

@Hacken Slash: Stolen cars or car parts are obviously wrong and smuggling may be immoral for a number of reasons. But what moral obligations do we have to help maintain the diamond monopoly?

It does not work that way. Copying music is not stealing (no matter how much some keep saying that). By making a copy of anything, you do not deprieve somebody of something real.Glad to hear you agree with me. I still say downloading is not the preferable way and it will be morally wrong in most cases, but there's no way to call it stealing. Various legal systems have known constructs like the old Roman "theft of use" (furtum usus, when you used something without permission) or the modern semantic idiocy known as "time theft" (when workers take unauthorised breaks).

Of course it's stealing, and you are incorrect when you say digital property is something intangible. If it were intangible, you could not make a copy of it. By making a copy of something without the owner's permission, you are depriving them of something real - the cash equivalent of the value of the product.

If you decide not to go out to a restaurant, yes you deprive them of your business, but on the other hand you did not gain something from them either. When you illegally copy digital property, you are gaining something tangible without recompense to the owner.

You do not have a right to the property to do with what you wish; if you think it is something you want, then pay what the owner is asking, negotiate with the owner for a price you are willing to pay, make something similar yourself, or do without.

The only question in this theft of digital property is whether you care or not.

Of course it's stealing, and you are incorrect when you say digital property is something intangible. If it were intangible, you could not make a copy of it. By making a copy of something without the owner's permission, you are depriving them of something real - the cash equivalent of the value of the product.That only works if you accept the fiction that the legal construct of "intellectual property" is reality. But there was nothing like that until recently. Things weren't that way before. It's not real and natural, it's been made up only recently by companies, lobbyists and all such.

If you make a copy, you make an unauthorised representation of something. You don't steal, let's say, a boxed set of CDs. You make a copy without compensating the owner of the original program, but so long as you don't claim authorship, you aren't stealing anything, which doesn't mean what you're doing is right, of course.

What if you record the music the restaurants household band of musicians plays, are you stealing it? :p I suppose you should at least put your head in the window or something. :p

If you do something with property to which you don't have any right, it's still not always stealing, so your last argument doesn't work.

Of course it's unfair to copy the records of someone's work once done without giving him anything in return, especially if he isn't willing to give it to you for free. However, when people are so willing to accept all the jargon of "intellectual property", "theft of digital property" and the like, along with all the corporate thinking behind it, I'm starting to worry. It's the same feeling I experience when people buy the government propaganda without a critical analysis.

Next, maintaining the whole system of intellectual, digital or whatever made up property costs tax money. I don't think it's totally right if taxpayers are de facto sponsoring the creation, upholding and execution of such laws. It's like feeding tax money to monopolies.

By making a copy of something without the owner's permission, you are depriving them of something real - the cash equivalent of the value of the product. Again, you are assuming that I would have bought that song if it would not be available for download. I think we all agree this is unlikely :)

When you illegally copy digital property, you are gaining something tangible without recompense to the owner. Hum. If I ask somebody on the street what time it is, I am gainig something, so I should pay him for the info. You could argue that a song is more valuable than a simple piece of information. Maybe; but how can you estimate that value? And moreover that varies from person to person; somebody might like the music very much (and then he'd decide to buy some further work from that artist, thus compensating him), somebody else might not care.

I think chevalier has touched on an important point in his post, too. Copyright is a societal convention: we do grant the artist some rights, in order that they be interested in producing more art, so the whole society would benefit. I think this has been screwed up completely in the recent times (i.e., copyright is used mostly to stop production of derivative art, dissemination of stuf which should be in the public domain since a long time ago, supporting monopolies, etc.) So I am not advocating eliminating copyright completely, but some reevaluation is in order.

What if you record the music the restaurants household band of musicians plays, are you stealing it? Yes. :p Taking something that does not belong to you without its owner's consent is the very definition of stealing. In the case of an unauthorized (or copied) recording, you are stealing their service, effectively forcing them to re-perform the song at any time you wish without compensating them. Though it gets a little hazy as the performers do not have to spend time for the subsequent performances, you are still getting more than you paid for without consent. With the example of a restaurant band, you are paying the cost with your bill for the food; not an exact science, but it is figured in.
-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_
Again, you are assuming that I would have bought that song if it would not be available for download. No he's not; it simply doesn't matter. Basic micro-econ: You've gained an asset without losing another asset (probably cash), incurring a liability, or performing a valued service. To put it simply, you haven't earned it in any way, shape, or form. Music and art is currently valued as a private owning, not public, so the value must be compensated somehow; either by a credit to balance the debit, or a negative debit to erase it.

As a public owning, considerably fewer people would bother since they could not benefit from it. If you want more music, there must be a sacrifice.
Hum. If I ask somebody on the street what time it is, I am gainig something, so I should pay him for the info. No, he gave it to you freely, without terms, so you have no obligation to pay him. He has every right to refuse to tell you if he wished, but most people aren't that petty. But artists have to be petty because it's how they earn their living.

[ January 06, 2006, 23:15: Message edited by: Felinoid ]

However, when people are so willing to accept all the jargon of "intellectual property", "theft of digital property" and the like, along with all the corporate thinking behind it, I'm starting to worry. It's the same feeling I experience when people buy the government propaganda without a critical analysis. Man, I really agree with that. The consumer "owns" nothing any longer in our society. Everything belongs to the corporations. In many cases, not even the original artist "owns" the material any longer; it belongs to the record companies, or a production company.

The consumer gets almost nothing in return for his/her money. He is not respected, and he has not very many rights, if any, regarding his purchases. Most people don't own the cars they drive, they don't own their homes, they don't own their music, movies, software, games, even the clothes on their backs may be on a credit card, so they don't even own that much any longer. The banks, the credit card companies, the entertainment companies, they are the real owners of real "property." It means that all of us work to keep paying them. At some point there will be a consumer "revolution" against this kind of nonsense. But you are absolutely right about the "intellectual property" nonsense - that's just more "corporate speak" and another way to screw the consumer out of something he has paid for with hard earned money.

Man, I really agree with that. The consumer "owns" nothing any longer in our society. Everything belongs to the corporations. In many cases, not even the original artist "owns" the material any longer; it belongs to the record companies, or a production company.Yeah, it's like modern feudalism but in a slightly different form, more drastic sometimes. I wonder when cars, computers, various electronics and other such products will start having EULA's attached, like you can't unscrew the cover, change anything in the engine, use the MP3 player as a USB stick for your documents, whatever.

The consumer gets almost nothing in return for his/her money. He is not respected, and he has not very many rights, if any, regarding his purchases. Most people don't own the cars they drive, they don't own their homes, they don't own their music, movies, software, games, even the clothes on their backs may be on a credit card, so they don't even own that much any longer. The banks, the credit card companies, the entertainment companies, they are the real owners of real "property." It means that all of us work to keep paying them.Correct, and we aren't any better off than we used to be. We're only more advanced (and I'm wondering if even this is actually true...). It's just property ownership shifting like that as corporate power grows. Soon we're all going to work for corporations and get everything from corporations... it's like a tribal or clan system, just with international clans and facade governments that still manage to cut their share (every single penny going anywhere being taxed down to one quarter of it).

In many cases, not even the original artist "owns" the material any longer; it belongs to the record companies, or a production company.That's because the artist sold it to them.

The banks, the credit card companies, the entertainment companies, they are the real owners of real "property." It means that all of us work to keep paying them. At some point there will be a consumer "revolution" against this kind of nonsense.Wow. You're blaming banks etc. for people using credit to make purchases? Weird. Most people are happy that they can buy something before they have aquired the necessary funds, and if they aren't, there's nothing forcing them to use credit.

But you are absolutely right about the "intellectual property" nonsense - that's just more "corporate speak" and another way to screw the consumer out of something he has paid for with hard earned money.Err, what? I don't quite understand that. How are they screwing you out of something you paid for? All they are asking is that you pay... :confused:

He's probably referring to all that DRM crap.

Felinoid: Basic micro-econ: You've gained an asset without losing another asset (probably cash), incurring a liability, or performing a valued service. So everything has to be a zero sum game? How about the other way around: if I pay for music I have downloaded, the artist gets an asset (my money) without losing other asset (what exactly did he lose?). This is just to show that in my opinion, talking about music/Intellectual Property in purely economic terms is foolish.

And about the argument that considerably less music would be produced if we'd not have these restrictive copyrights: maybe, but I'm sure the average quality would be much higher. I don't think true artists are in it for the money, anyhow.

[ January 06, 2006, 23:38: Message edited by: khaavern ]

That's because the artist sold it to them.Or because such was the contract maybe? Because he had no choice?

We have a whole market of "intellectual property" rights, including companies which specialise in just that. That's just wrong.

Err, what? I don't quite understand that. How are they screwing you out of something you paid for? All they are asking is that you pay... How many terms of a software EULA can you negotiate per average?

Or because such was the contract maybe? Because he had no choice?Of course he had a choice. He didn't have to sign the contract.

How many terms of a software EULA can you negotiate per average?Me personally? All of them. Which terms do you have a problem with?

Of course he had a choice. He didn't have to sign the contract.Supposing you're drowning and I offer you a wheel for all the money you own. Do you still have choice?

And I'd like to hear more about your negotiating EULA terms...

My problem starts with the fact I don't get to own anything but I get a crappy license. My next problem is that my right to a back-up copy is being thwarted and yes, for example, the perfectly legal Warcraft III CD I'm going to use in a minute can't be copied and is already quite worn from sheer intensity of use. The price is my other problem. As well as the fact I'm expected not to lend it (and I'm not talking about lending for money) -- even though it's still actually legal for me to lend it if I don't play it myself at the same time (but there's a problem here if something doesn't require a CD to run), can't play with friends even if they come round for just one evening of a LAN party but don't buy their own copy etc etc.

Besides, don't the biggest companies advocating "intellectual property" themselves have a problem with copyright lawsuits? Product names, concepts, even whole parts of code? What were the beginnings of those big companies, did they even own the computers (along with software licenses) they compiled their first programs on?

[ January 07, 2006, 00:11: Message edited by: chevalier ]

Copyright laws and intellectual property are indeed new concepts. About as new as the ability to record music. A couple of hundred years ago nobody whined about royalties, yes; neither did anybody have a means of keeping a recorded performance in their shelf.

Music couldn't be recorded but notes could have been copyrighted. Or paintings or sculptures that everyone could copy. Artists were still getting paid (well, they weren't all rich but compare the old princes and nobles and bishops and all with modern record companies) and usurping authorship was still a bad thing. Books weren't copyrighted, either, unlike now.

BTA - When I put down $15.00+ for a music CD and take it home, it is mine. If I wish to make 15,000 copies and put them all in my garage because I have noting better to do, that should be my business. Now, if I distribute or draw income off of the CD that is another matter. But I have the right to control what goes on in the four walls of my home, as long as I do no harm to anyone else.

Remember what James Otis said in the one of the statements that is thought to have sparked the Revolution: "A man's home is his castle, and he should be treated as if he is a prince when he is in it by the government." Ah, but it's not really my home - it belongs to the mortgage company - which also owns the credit card company, which also owns the record company, which also owns...

So everything has to be a zero sum game? How about the other way around: if I pay for music I have downloaded, the artist gets an asset (my money) without losing other asset (what exactly did he lose?). His time and money. More specifically, the time he took to write the song, the time he took for that performance, the money for the recording studio, etc. Everything that went into making that recording, you're paying for a piece of it every time you download and pay for it. If you don't, you're stealing.
And about the argument that considerably less music would be produced if we'd not have these restrictive copyrights: maybe, but I'm sure the average quality would be much higher. I don't think true artists are in it for the money, anyhow. 100% true, and I even wish that were the case right now. But what you and I consider quality is not global. Consider, if you will, rap music. How many of those are in it for the "music" and not the money? (I'd personally be glad to see that cr*p off the airwaves, but not everyone would agree with me.)
___________________________________________
Supposing you're drowning and I offer you a wheel for all the money you own. Do you still have choice? Of course; a wheel is heavy and would sink me. ;) I might take an inflated tire, but it's still a choice; even if it's between dying and not dying. Take the money to your watery grave if you want, but I don't care that much for money. Wait, what was this supposed to be about again? :confused: I seem to have missed the connection. :bad:

Supposing you're drowning and I offer you a wheel for all the money you own. Do you still have choice?Of course I have a choice. I may decide my life is not worth living if I gave all my money to you, and would rather my decendants had it.

And I'd like to hear more about your negotiating EULA terms...That's simple. Either I abide by the license terms and buy the software, or I don't and don't buy the software.

My problem starts with the fact I don't get to own anything but I get a crappy license.Honestly, that's just too bad. If the majority of people felt strongly enough about such agreements, that they would not purchase the software, then the agreements would have to change. I doubt you are not purchasing software you want due to the agreements, so you are contributing to the so-called problem.

Besides, don't the biggest companies advocating "intellectual property" themselves have a problem with copyright lawsuits?I would say they are more patent lawsuits, and I have already stated I think patents these days are much too broad in scope.

When I put down $15.00+ for a music CD and take it home, it is mine. That is correct. That particular CD is yours.
If I wish to make 15,000 copies and put them all in my garage because I have noting better to do, that should be my business. Now, if I distribute or draw income off of the CD that is another matter. But I have the right to control what goes on in the four walls of my home, as long as I do no harm to anyone else.Correct. What's stopping you is certainly not the copyright laws. If companies decide to put copy protections onto their merchandise, you can choose not to buy it; if enough people do so, such protections would be removed. The problem is, to most people it's not a big enough deal to prevent them from buying it.

Ah, but it's not really my home - it belongs to the mortgage company - which also owns the credit card company, which also owns the record company, which also owns... That was your choice. You could have waited the 15 years or so it would take you to save enough money to buy your house outright.

CtR - the home ownership issue is actually much more pertinent when you look at it from the perspective of real estate taxes, not private funding issues. When you buy your house, you don't have to borrow, you can pay for it. If you can't afford it, then rent or borrow. If you borrow, you agree that, if you don't pay, the bank can take your house -- that is the bank's collateral. Almost always, a purchase of a house with such a note is called a "purchase money mortgage" which means that the bank can't even go after you for its money, just the house. So, if the market turns upside down and your house is worth less than you owe on it, you can walk away with no liability to the bank, and it is stuck with a house worth less than your debt.

My beef is that the government can (and usually does) tax you, and the government can take your house. My issues with taxes are separate and way off topic, but at least the bank makes a direct deal with you and fronts you the money for your house (albeit with interest built in -- it's not like the bank is a charity). The only thing that the government has done is exist.

As for the issue of prior composers and copyright, Chev, the way the patronage system worked was that the composers generally worked for a noble patron who commissioned the work. It's a precursor to the "work for hire" concept which applies in intellectual property laws and is perfectly logical. If your job is to create intellectual property (i.e., works of music, etc.) and you are paid for that, why should you also get to keep the intellectual property rights unless you bargain for them?

People, it is stealing. You may have justifications for it in your own minds, but under most common laws throughout the world, intellectual property is property. Illegal downloading is not any different that cable television theft. It's not like the cable company has less material to provide to the subscribers who are legally paying for it. You cannot do a simple analysis and say "gee, the company hasn't lost anything because of it in that I wasn't going to buy it anyway."

You have gained an asset at no cost to yourself that was not freely given to you and would not have been given had you asked. That is theft.

BTA, DMC - You guys are missing my point. It is not a bad thing in itself to borrow money to buy a home. It is that once the property is mine, I should be able do with it AT MY HOME as I please (as long as I don't distribute it (beyond my home) in any way. All this "intellectual property" stuff is a bunch of corporate baloney.

DMC - I can use BTA's argument regarding the government: If enough people don't like what the government is doing reagrding taxes and your home, they can vote for change. But, alas, for some reason - as is with the software, cd music situation - it never seems to change...I feel your pain, brother.

@dmc: Theft doesn't happen by someone gaining property but by someone losing it.

As for all the different systems, the main problem is what happens with the work and how far rights are removed from the author. Patronage didn't differ from modern hiring people to create "intellectual property" but it's not like Duke A was prevented from hiring Artist B to paint for him what Duke X had Artist Y paint for him, by anything else than the preference to have something better, different, unique.

@BTA: People won't change anything so long as they don't act together. So long as everyone thinks he won't achieve anything on his own. Your general boycott only works if a given company manages to drive everyone to despair so that people don't care what others do. Corporate customers wield more power than individual consumers, therefore this kind of reality also favours corporations in yet another way. We're getting thoroughly screwed by corporations from birth to death and it already looks like nothing's going to change this and it's only going to get worse. I'm not saying that corporations are all evil and all aspects but they've already got more power than they should ever have and they are only getting more. I can easily see high-ranking international corporate officers with diplomatic immunity and CEOs treated on par with prime ministers.

As for copyrights and patents and all such, it isn't so simple. What about the RIAA using Kazaa Lite to locate people who share files illegally? Using Kazaa Lite is a Kazaa EULA violation as the whole program is an illegal modification of Kazaa. The RIAA isn't protecting any rights, it's just doing lawsuit business.

[ January 07, 2006, 03:00: Message edited by: chevalier ]

Music couldn't be recorded but notes could have been copyrighted. Or paintings or sculptures that everyone could copy. Artists were still getting paid (well, they weren't all rich but compare the old princes and nobles and bishops and all with modern record companies) and usurping authorship was still a bad thing. Books weren't copyrighted, either, unlike now.The only one of these that is truly similar to the copying of today is the copying of books. But mind you, before the existence of copyright laws printing equipment was few and far between, and before that everything was copyed by hand. It doesn't quite compare either.
We're getting thoroughly screwed by corporations from birth to death and it already looks like nothing's going to change this and it's only going to get worse. I'm not saying that corporations are all evil and all aspects but they've already got more power than they should ever have and they are only getting more. I can easily see high-ranking international corporate officers with diplomatic immunity and CEOs treated on par with prime ministers.Agreed there. It pisses me off.

Chev - maybe your laws are written different than mine (it's certainly possible), but most laws in the states on theft and stealing look at it from the perspective of the person doing the stealing, not the person being stolen from. Thus, it is usually defined as something along the lines of: the acquisition of property from another by force, threat of force or stealth without knowing permission . . .

Illegal downloading definitely fits that definition.

Okay, I am not a lawyer, so I do not know what's the definition of stealing; hoewver, after a bit of googling I found this page (http://www.ci.westminster.co.us/Code/Title06/T6C3.htm)
(the municipal code of some city in Colorado)
6-3-1: THEFT:

(A) It shall be unlawful to commit theft. A person commits theft when he knowingly obtains or exercises control over anything of value of another without authorization, or by threat or deception, where the value of the thing involved is less than five hundred dollars ($500), and (1275 1505 2057 2584)

1. Intends to deprive the other person permanently of the use or benefit of the thing of value; or

2. Knowingly uses, conceals, or abandons the thing of value in such manner as to deprive the other person permanently of its use or benefit; or

3. Uses, conceals, or abandons the thing of value intending that such use, concealment or abandonment will deprive the other person permanently of its use and benefit; or

4. Demands any consideration to which he is not legally entitled as a condition of restoring the thing of value to the other person. so apparently theft implies depriving the rightful owner of the object under consideration. So then copying music is not quite theft.

Also from the Wikipedia
The actus reus of theft is usually defined as an unauthorised taking, keeping or using of another's property which must be accompanied by a mens rea of dishonesty and/or the intent to permanently deprive the owner or the person with rightful possession of that property or its use. Make of this what you will.

Found some more info (the internet is a wonderful thing :) ) apparently there is a Supreme Court case - Dowling v. United States, 473 U.S. 207 (1985) - where this Dowling, being covicted of theft in a lower court for dealing in copied music, appealed to the Supreme on the basis that he did not stole anything, and the Supreme ruled for him. This ruling is generally regarded as an acknowledgement that copyright infringement is not theft.

You can read the Supreme Court decision here (http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?navby=search&court=US&case=/us/473/207.html)

[ January 08, 2006, 04:06: Message edited by: khaavern ]

I for one wasn't talking about the legal definition of theft; I assumed theft and copyright infringement would be treated separately under the law, but to me they amount to the same thing in principle.

Interestingly enough though, apparently many judges do equate the two since Dowling was convicted in a federal district court, his conviction was upheld by the ninth circuit court of appeals, and three of the Supreme Court justices dissented on the reversal.

Really, thinking hard about it, what they're losing isn;t their music, but your custom. What they lament is a loss of a customer, so in effect you are stealing yourself...
Downloading music is kidnap? :D

I'll pose a situation here (a true one, too!)

I downloaded a couple of songs, on the advice of a friend, about three years ago. The band was not popular in the UK, and I would never have heard of them otherwise. I liked these songs, and bought an album(the only one stocked in HMV). I know have about 5 albums, all bought and paid for.

So, my downloading earned the band (Or whoever, lets not start this argument again) about £75

How much would 3 tracks have cost? 30p on Napster?

I've got a quote from a famous musician somewhere saying he doesn't mind downloading because it spreads his music about, and for everyone who downloads, another will buy. I've a sneaking suspicion it was Chris Martin, but I'm not sure. It definatley wasn't Metallica...

I've got a quote from a famous musician somewhere saying he doesn't mind downloading because it spreads his music about, and for everyone who downloads, another will buy. Congratulations, then; you've got his permission. But only his permission; he can't speak for all artists.
I downloaded a couple of songs, on the advice of a friend, about three years ago. The band was not popular in the UK, and I would never have heard of them otherwise. I liked these songs, and bought an album(the only one stocked in HMV). I know have about 5 albums, all bought and paid for. Good for you, but did you really have to download them? You could have listened to your friend's songs (assuming he/she had a legal copy), or listened in a record store that permitted it (after which you would have already been in the perfect place to buy an album or two).

This whole "copyright" thing is absolute BS. I spent 5 years in college as literature/journalism major. I copied all kinds of documents, books, articles and the like for papers and stories (almost all of it copyrighted). And no one batted an eye about how many copies of anything I could make. Sure, its all for academics, but all this stuff about one "copy for this device" and "one copy for that use" is all corporate nonsense. It's all about corporate greed.

@dmc: Well, you can't escape looking from the perspective of the person committing theft because you always need some kind of mens rea (in continental systems, it has different definitions but it comes down to intending the act (or culpably neglecting duty), not being excused and similar cirumstances), but what I meant was that you can't commit theft if you just acquire something but only if you take something away, i.e. inflict a loss (erm... except you could still technically steal a dump of waste that you should normally be paid for disposing of, but let's not be too picky ;) ). Otherwise, it's undue enrichment at most, so not even a tort. Of course, if we have EULAs, we don't need torts because contract breach suffices... Then again, lawmakers surely can criminalise whatever kind of unlawful gain they want, and as it's also up to them to decide what's unlawful gain, the whole discussion is sort of pointless in practice... But it still looks just weird to consider copying theft. Perhaps a virtual form of theft of benefits, now that I think about it, but it still doesn't really fit. It is a violation of property rights as defined by the law but so is damaging or destroying an item and that isn't considered theft.

Another point is that, under certain laws, such as the Polish one, you can at least theoretically get a harsher punishment for copying games than for stealing them from shops (it's debatable if Polish item value thresholds for theft apply to software or music piracy as well and the price of a game in the shop is below that). Besides, software or music companies tend to estimate their losses higher than the value of the product you didn't buy even with interest calculated for the whole time you've been using it. If you let a friend copy a $100 program, you would end up being informed that you inflictted a loss of several hundred dollar each, not $100 jointly, not even $100 + interest. It's not just Poland, it's like that everywhere, I think. And I don't like it.

Sure, its all for academics, but all this stuff about one "copy for this device" and "one copy for that use" is all corporate nonsense. It's all about corporate greed.Couldn't agree more. I'm deeply skeptical of adhesion contracts in all aspects of life. First they are creating a market, then they are messing with it and pushing on you some quasi-legal regulations through EULAs and the like, lobbying in the parliament/government circles, as well. Ultimately, they just simply screw you all the way as they see fit to such an extent as they can get away with.

I've said it before (in this thread or a similar one) and I'll say it again: some laws are stupid. But they're still the law; break them at your own risk. A prime example is one from the Simpsons, requiring all men to wear hats outside during daylight hours, or another one requiring all ducks to wear pants. Sure, they're idiotic and borderline retarded, but they would still be the law, and a man outside without a hat during the day would be rightfully arrested and jailed for being even stupider than the law. :p

What really gets me is people breaking laws that require no effort whatsoever to obey. Do you have to hear music or you'll die? I don't think so! So just lay off the music purchasing, organize a boycott, push some legislation, whatever. But deliberately breaking a law (repeatedly, even) when it's completely unnecessary is quite literally asking for trouble, and dumber than a fencepost IMHO. I'm done here. :rolling:

Sure, they're idiotic and borderline retarded, but they would still be the law, and a man outside without a hat during the day would be rightfully arrested and jailed for being even stupider than the law.That's a valid concern, I think. Plus, the law does deserve some special respect other than appreciating the rules that seem resonable and that you or I agree with. But it's a different thing when laws start regulating a pretty complex social or mercantile situation that isn't easily sorted out by just laying down a rule.

I still wonder why they don't require you to turn the music down completely when talking on the phone or having a video-conversation on a communicator or to use headphones when you can be heard by people.

Or the gratuitous advertisement you owe to companies for just mentioning the name. Even if you mention the company's name only, you're still expected to write miles of "is a trademark of" babble. Let alone if you use a product name. Look on the stuff that Tal has to put at the bottom of the SP sites. What other purpose does it serve than gratuitous advertisement? So what, if people don't write all that crap, are they supposed to lose a lawsuit (or even trial) for using a name? Come on, come on...

Recently, doing the news for SP, I've noticed "receives BioWare merchandise" as a description of an award. Not a game. Not even a product. Merchandise. Same way, in dev interviews, there are no settings and worlds. There are franchises. Or properties.

I want to be a game player, not a customer. I want to buy a game, not purchase a limited non-exclusive non-transferrable licence. I want to play a game based on a nice book or series of books, not on franchise. I want to enjoy a book and game setting, not a property. Even if I'm tree semesters away from LLM myself. And when I hear "franchise", I want to puke.

By the way, any more thoughts on the original idea of RIAA going after people who don't even own a computer?

[ January 08, 2006, 19:35: Message edited by: chevalier ]