Extortion Is Profitable Too, Doesn't Mean That It's A Fair Way To Profit Off Piracy

from the just-saying... dept

Tue, Oct 13th 2009 8:30am — Mike Masnick

We've covered in the past how companies like Digiprotect convince the entertainment and software industries to sign over copyright licenses to allow them to purposely load file sharing networks with their content -- and then send anyone who downloads the content a threat letter demanding payment. The idea here is not to actually take anyone to court or to stop file sharing. Not at all. The idea is to profit from these threat letters. And, as it turns out... it's quite a profitable scheme. TorrentFreak has some numbers from a music industry presentation discussing how these extortion-like enterprises can pay quite handsomely. Basically, this one group, DRS, sends out emails demanding €450 ($650) per offense, with the company getting to keep 80% of any proceeds. Furthermore, DRS claims that approximately 25% just pay right up, which means for every infringement letter DRS sends out, it can expect to bring in $162.50, with 20% going to the ~~artist~~ rights holder. That's $32.50 that the rightsholder can expect per infringement, on average. That sure as hell beats a few pennies per download. No wonder such programs are becoming so popular. Of course, that doesn't make them any more ethical. Purposely putting files online and then sending out threat letters isn't exactly the moral high ground here.

Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.

Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.

While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.

–The Techdirt Team

Filed Under: copyright, extortion
Companies: digiprotect, drs

174 Comments

If you liked this post, you may also be interested in...

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

Dark Helmet (profile), 13 Oct 2009 @ 8:33am

Uh, clarification?
"Furthermore, DRS claims that approximately 25% just pay right up, which means for every infringement letter DRS sends out, it can expect to bring in $162.50, with 20% going to the artist."

20% to the ARTIST, or to the RIGHTS HOLDER (e.g. Music Label)?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- A Dan (profile), 13 Oct 2009 @ 9:51am
  
  Re: Uh, clarification?
  The linked article says "copyright holders".
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Mike Masnick (profile), 13 Oct 2009 @ 10:20am
  
  Re: Uh, clarification?
  20% to the ARTIST, or to the RIGHTS HOLDER (e.g. Music Label)?
  
  Yes, that's right. Should have been clearer... let me update...
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Ima Fish (profile), 13 Oct 2009 @ 8:37am

"companies... convince the entertainment and software industries to sign over copyright licenses..."

I know it's been asked, many times, many ways, but if the rights holder is the entity which intentionally places the copyrighted work on a P2P network, how is it illegal for someone else to download it?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- thublihnk (profile), 13 Oct 2009 @ 8:42am
  
  Re:
  Agreed. Isn't that AUTHORIZED downloading of content?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Phillip Vector (profile), 13 Oct 2009 @ 8:45am
  
  Re:
  I have been ninjaed. I was about to ask the same thing.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- :Lobo Santo (profile), 13 Oct 2009 @ 8:52am
  
  Re:
  Must agree... that's like putting a pie on the table during a "free pie" festival and then smacking anybody who dares take a piece. Pie... piece.
  
  Yeah... unruly smacking going on; all due to putting out free pie!
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Nic, 13 Oct 2009 @ 8:45am

yeah yeah, but...
I know this isn't a very fashionable view here but, the downloaders _are_ breaking the law and they _are_ infringing on copyright...

Dodgy method for collection? Maybe.
Pity the downloader for being fined? Nope: If you can't do the time, don't do the crime.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Phillip Vector (profile), 13 Oct 2009 @ 8:47am
  
  Re: yeah yeah, but...
  As Ima Fish pointed out above... How is this illegal? The company is putting the torrent out to be shared.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Nic, 13 Oct 2009 @ 8:51am
    
    Re: Re: yeah yeah, but...
    don't want to spark a flame war, but... If I left a bag of potatoes out on my front lawn, i wouldn't expect people to just take some. They are still my potatoes.
    
    Also, if I put my case down in a cafe to drink my tea, I'd be slightly put out if someone ran off with it.
    
    Same applies here: just because the files are available, still doesn't give people the right to take them.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Phillip Vector (profile), 13 Oct 2009 @ 8:56am
      
      Re: Re: Re: yeah yeah, but...
      I don't want a flame war either.. But your logic is not sound.
      
      For the potatoes, you aren't just leaving them on your front lawn, you are taking them to the market and putting them up on a table with a sign saying "free potatoes". I know of no torrent file that you need to pay for. None.
      
      Now, if you put your file on iTunes and someone took it off there without paying, THEN that would be illegal. But putting it in an area that you know it will be downloaded (Nay, you HOPE it's downloaded because you are counting on the fees) means that your defense of "I put it there not expecting it to be downloaded" would be laughed out of court.
      
      "Same applies here: just because the files are available, still doesn't give people the right to take them."
      
      No. Unless you put them on a service that you know people will take them (and I prefer the term copy. You aren't losing your files when I copy them).
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Nic, 13 Oct 2009 @ 9:04am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: yeah yeah, but...
        Yeah, i get the idea that Torrent networks are basically for sharing files, but it could be seen as simply a distribution network. The copyright holder may have put them on the network for people that have been given the right to download..
        
        Again, I understand the basic argument, but I still don't agree that because the copyright owner put the files on the net means that anyone can download them.
        
        I can download plenty of software apps form the vendor's sites, but if i don't also pay for a licence per end user seat, I'm breaking the law - even if the copyright holder has made the software freely available for download. They could have as easily put the application on a Torrent network and the licence would still be required. Especially if the vendor required you to pay _before_ you download.
        
        Anyway.. Grr.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Phillip Vector (profile), 13 Oct 2009 @ 9:13am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: yeah yeah, but...
        "Yeah, i get the idea that Torrent networks are basically for sharing files, but it could be seen as simply a distribution network. The copyright holder may have put them on the network for people that have been given the right to download.."
        
        If they named the torrent "filename.exe - Do not download if you do not have a license", then I can see it. You are effectively "putting a sign up over your potatoes that they aren't free". That's cool and yes, the people who download that SHOULD be charged. But without that sign, the default is free to download.
        
        "Again, I understand the basic argument, but I still don't agree that because the copyright owner put the files on the net means that anyone can download them."
        
        Not "The Net", but "A file sharing service that is free to all".
        
        "I can download plenty of software apps form the vendor's sites, but if i don't also pay for a licence per end user seat, I'm breaking the law - even if the copyright holder has made the software freely available for download. They could have as easily put the application on a Torrent network and the licence would still be required. Especially if the vendor required you to pay _before_ you download."
        
        Yes. Most of the time, the license is in the program itself. So I don't follow you here. If they have a program that requires a license key, then you are still stuck with an unusable file until you get said key (that you have to pay for). Your analogy doesn't apply here since audio files don't have that key.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Nic, 13 Oct 2009 @ 9:18am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: yeah yeah, but...
        "Yes. Most of the time, the license is in the program itself. So I don't follow you here. If they have a program that requires a license key, then you are still stuck with an unusable file until you get said key (that you have to pay for). Your analogy doesn't apply here since audio files don't have that key."
        
        Not true - There are plenty of development tools that are totally free to download, but require a payment per seat to use.
        
        But, I think we all get the gist of the story... :)
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Phillip Vector (profile), 13 Oct 2009 @ 9:22am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: yeah yeah, but...
        "Not true - There are plenty of development tools that are totally free to download, but require a payment per seat to use."
        
        True. Well, around here, we call that "Give away and pray". Not the best business model, but may generate some income. It destroys your argument though.
        
        If they have it available on their webpage, then they want people to download it, try it out and (hopefully) pay them for it. If it's available to download on their webpage and they put it also on BitTorrent, how is it illegial to get it from a torrent site and not illegial to get it from the website?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Dmitriy Plaks (profile), 13 Oct 2009 @ 9:35am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: yeah yeah, but...
        Can you point out some concrete examples?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Nic, 13 Oct 2009 @ 9:42am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: yeah yeah, but...
        Telerik ASP.NET Ajax controls spring to mind..
        
        http://www.telerik.com/purchase/license-agreement/telerik-premium-collection.aspx
        
        It allows me to freely download a fully working tool, but trusts me to buy sufficient licenses for all end user seats.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Dmitriy Plaks (profile), 13 Oct 2009 @ 10:46am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: yeah yeah, but...
        Yes, but if you read their website carefully, the freely available version is meant as a trial only and has limitations. To get a fully working copy you need to buy their license.
        
        http://www.telerik.com/purchase/faqs/telerik-premium-collection-for-dotnet.aspx
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Nic, 13 Oct 2009 @ 10:48am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: yeah yeah, but...
        Yes, but I can buy one licence and install in on 200 developer machines.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 13 Oct 2009 @ 11:03am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: yeah yeah, but...
        Yes but there is an indication you're not allowed to do so.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Nic, 13 Oct 2009 @ 11:08am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: yeah yeah, but...
        So the Torrent of Photoshop CS3 is OK to download because it doesn't say "requires licence"?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 13 Oct 2009 @ 11:39am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: yeah yeah, but...
        Yes, it is free to download by those who choose to stick their heads in the sand and pretend they are not doing anything wrong.
        
        BTW, you are right to comments about the word "share". That is a term that was coined by P2P software creators (e.g., share folder). The correct term is "distribute", but then why stand on formality when one can create a "moral panic" by using the term "share" to rail against rights holders?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        DocMenach (profile), 13 Oct 2009 @ 11:56am
        
        Re: yeah yeah, but...
        Yes, it is free to download by those who choose to stick their heads in the sand and pretend they are not doing anything wrong.
        
        You once again make the incorrect assumption that everything on file sharing networks is unauthorized, when that is clearly not the case. There are Musicians, Software Publishers, Book Authors, and many other content creators that purposefully put their goods on file sharing networks for free distribution, 100% authorized and legal.
        
        Please explain to me how I can simply look at a file and recognize weather the file authorized or unauthorized.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        DocMenach (profile), 13 Oct 2009 @ 11:59am
        
        Re: Re: yeah yeah, but...
        Please explain to me how I can simply look at a file and recognize weather the file authorized or unauthorized.
        
        I mean whether not weather. Dang, I always do that.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Nic, 13 Oct 2009 @ 12:02pm
        
        Re: Re: yeah yeah, but...
        You know. I walk past houses everyday near me that have bits and bobs out side for passers by to take, old books, unwanted speakers, etc. I would know if the brand new bike leaning against someone's wall was for the taking or not, much in the same way you'd know if the latest album by an artist was "free for the taking" or not. Radiohead? NIN? yep. Photoshop CS3? No.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        DocMenach (profile), 13 Oct 2009 @ 12:12pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: yeah yeah, but...
        You know. I walk past houses everyday near me that have bits and bobs out side for passers by to take, old books, unwanted speakers, etc. I would know if the brand new bike leaning against someone's wall was for the taking or not, much in the same way you'd know if the latest album by an artist was "free for the taking" or not. Radiohead? NIN? yep. Photoshop CS3? No.
        
        You're just supposed to know? Sorry it doesn't work that way. What about obscure artists who can't necesarrily scream to the world "hey, my next album is free!!".
        
        Take the example of two obscure artists, let's call them Joey and Bob. Joey decides to release his album in the conventional way, with CDs and paid MP3s (through iTunes), but the files end up on the file sharing networks because someone decide put them there (unauthorized). Bob decides to release his album freely using bittorrent (authorized). Neither artist is well known, and is unlikely to get any mainstream press coverage. How would I know which file is authorized? By your logic I should just know?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Nic, 13 Oct 2009 @ 12:17pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: yeah yeah, but...
        "Ignorance of the law is no defence"
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        JB, 13 Oct 2009 @ 12:36pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: yeah yeah, but...
        I bet being so deep will allow me to write a word a single letter at a time: A n t i d i s e s t a b l i s h m e n t a t r i a n i s m .
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        chris (profile), 13 Oct 2009 @ 2:33pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: yeah yeah, but...
        m
        a
        r
        b
        l
        e
        
        c
        a
        k
        e
        
        a
        l
        s
        o
        
        t
        h
        e
        
        g
        a
        m
        e
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 13 Oct 2009 @ 11:13pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: yeah yeah, but...
        Interesting that you still didn't answer the question. Why not? Can't? Don't like the answer?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Nic, 14 Oct 2009 @ 12:10am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: yeah yeah, but...
        No, it's because I live in the UK and was asleep.
        
        I'm neither greedy or lazy. I'm just someone that believes that if someone downloads a music track for free that they do not have express permission to do so for, then they are breaking the law.
        
        How the "law" is "enforced" (the point of this article) is up for debate, not the law itself.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        DocMenach (profile), 14 Oct 2009 @ 8:50am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: yeah yeah, but...
        I'm just someone that believes that if someone downloads a music track for free that they do not have express permission to do so for, then they are breaking the law.
        
        Well just because you believe something doesn't make it true. Real life does not agree with you. There are plenty of music tracks that are fully authorized and legal to download for free, without having to get express permission.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 14 Oct 2009 @ 1:27pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: yeah yeah, but...
        No, it's because I live in the UK and was asleep.
        
        You weren't asleep when you previously gave a response that failed to answer the question (unless you're trying to claim that you were posting in your sleep). And you certainly don't seem to be asleep now, but you've still not answered the question. So what's your new excuse?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Nic, 14 Oct 2009 @ 1:10am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: yeah yeah, but...
        Come on!! Answer me!!!!! ;)
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 13 Oct 2009 @ 2:06pm
        
        Re: Re: yeah yeah, but...
        What would be your reaction to a file entitled:
        
        "Photoshop CS4 and Keygen"
        "The Bourne Identity"
        "All of U2's songs MP3 256 bit rate"
        
        Do any of these look like the rights holder or its licensee put them on the internet so they would be free for the taking?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 13 Oct 2009 @ 11:21pm
        
        Re: Re: yeah yeah, but...
        Please explain to me how I can simply look at a file and recognize weather the file authorized or unauthorized.
        
        In most cases, you can't. Even if you were to contact the copyright holder in many cases you would still need copies of any relevant licensing contracts to take to a lawyer for review. And even then different lawyers can have different opinions. There are no guarantees.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Nic, 14 Oct 2009 @ 12:12am
        
        Re: Re: Re: yeah yeah, but...
        But isn't the burden of finding that out yours? That's a bit like roaming around the town taking things that you "don't know if it's free or not" until someone posts signs saying "NOT FREE"...
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        AC, 13 Oct 2009 @ 12:01pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: yeah yeah, but...
        This might be the deepest thread I've ever seen on this site.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        chris (profile), 13 Oct 2009 @ 2:31pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: yeah yeah, but...
        http://www.techdirt.com/article.php?sid=20090628%2F1626125387&threaded=true&sp=1#c930
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Chronno S. Trigger (profile), 13 Oct 2009 @ 12:02pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: yeah yeah, but...
        "why stand on formality when one can create a "moral panic" by using the term "share" to rail against rights holders?"
        
        Because we have assholes like you who call "distributing" "theft" and that also causes a "moral panic".
        
        If we all stayed in the middle where truth is, this issue would have been resolved years ago But no, We have assholes who will take our middle ground and twist it into the shit The RIAA and MPAA are pumping out. Since everyone knows (erroneously) that everyone twists the truth to their own cause, the answer must be in the middle. Thus we have to twist the truth to our side to get people back to the actual truth. We started with reality, you didn't.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Nic, 13 Oct 2009 @ 12:06pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: yeah yeah, but...
        I think that this site's comment section should have a standing order that people arguing against the direction of this site be called Devil's Advocates...
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Chronno S. Trigger (profile), 13 Oct 2009 @ 12:12pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: yeah yeah, but...
        To be a Devil's Advocate one must not believe what they're arguing for. We haven't figured out if these people are arguing for arguing sake or if they truly believe what they say (or in some cases, are payed to say it).
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 14 Oct 2009 @ 3:54pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: yeah yeah, but...
        Narrowest post ever.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 13 Oct 2009 @ 12:08pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: yeah yeah, but...
        If the person downloading it knew that they were infringing then it's illegal. If not, then it's not. If the uploader does not have authorization to upload it they presumably know that they don't have authorization so they are the ones who should get in trouble.
        
        It's like this. If I bought a stolen car and I didn't know it was stolen I'm not to blame. The person who sold it to me, who knew it was stolen, is to blame. Now if I bought it and KNEW it was stolen then I can get in trouble.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 13 Oct 2009 @ 11:02am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: yeah yeah, but...
        "There are plenty of development tools that are totally free to download, but require a payment per seat to use."
        
        Yeah, and those tools indicate that a payment is required where as in these situations there is no such indication.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 13 Oct 2009 @ 11:05am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: yeah yeah, but...
        Your stupidity and retarded logic just shows the broken logic of intellectual property maximists. You want people to take you and your pro intellectual property position seriously stop spewing such nonsense.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Nic, 13 Oct 2009 @ 11:12am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: yeah yeah, but...
        OK.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Chris Rhodes (profile), 13 Oct 2009 @ 9:01am
      
      Re: Re: Re: yeah yeah, but...
      Bad analogy.
      
      It's more like you went to the homepage of an artist you admired, and on his Downloads page were high-res copies of all his famous paintings, so you download some of your favorites.
      
      Then a couple weeks later you get a letter from him demanding several thousand dollars for your "infringement".
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - :Lobo Santo (profile), 13 Oct 2009 @ 9:01am
      
      Re: Re: Re: yeah yeah, but...
      If you left a bag of potatoes on your lawn next a sign that said "FREE POTATOES - TAKE ONE" though; that's a whole different story.
      
      (Remember, think before you post.)
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Nic, 13 Oct 2009 @ 9:06am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: yeah yeah, but...
        But I didn't set up that sign, and nor did the copyright holder. The sign just said "Potatoes", like the Torrent file said "Files are on That Server". Didn't say anything about them being "free".
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Phillip Vector (profile), 13 Oct 2009 @ 9:14am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: yeah yeah, but...
        Torrent files and the programs attached to them are, by default, free.
        
        If you don't want to give up a file for free, then don't put it on a torrent tracker.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Anonymous Coward, 13 Oct 2009 @ 11:19am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: yeah yeah, but...
        "If you left a bag of potatoes on your lawn"
        
        Your lawn and what's on your property is assumed to belong to you. If you left it in the street, on public property, on the other hand then there is no such assumption.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Nic, 13 Oct 2009 @ 11:21am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: yeah yeah, but...
        But the original files are on MY server - I only upload a Torrent file pointing to them...
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        JB, 13 Oct 2009 @ 11:39am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: yeah yeah, but...
        Nic, that is like setting up a device that will roll a potato from your lawn (private property) into the street (public property) when someone per your instructions (torrent file) activates it. You set it up so that anyone, with the instructions you provided, can freely acquire a potato.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Nic, 13 Oct 2009 @ 11:44am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: yeah yeah, but...
        Right, but the law says "don't click the potato roller button!"
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        JB, 13 Oct 2009 @ 12:19pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: yeah yeah, but...
        No, in fact it says don't click the potato roller button without permission. You provided permission by providing the instructions which implies your intent to provide the item freely.
        
        Now if your instructions (torrent file) has clear instructions stating that you are not authorizing people to take the potatoes, you have a case.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Nic, 13 Oct 2009 @ 12:27pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: yeah yeah, but...
        I know how to take candy from a baby, but I also know it's wrong. Imagine that I posted a self produced track on my site that required a password to access. Say i set the password to "password". I'd guess plenty of people out there would guess and gain access.
        
        My naive attempt at security is a flag not to take the file, but it's not spelled out in a licence - "If you guess the password, you can't have the file, but if i tell you wat it is, you can..."
        
        I didn't provide permission to click the potato button much in the same way i didn't explicitly grant access to my passworded track.
        
        (Potato button? How the f*** did we get here?!)
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 13 Oct 2009 @ 12:34pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: yeah yeah, but...
        "My naive attempt at security is a flag not to take the file"
        
        Yes, in this situation it is.
        
        "I didn't provide permission to click the potato button much in the same way i didn't explicitly grant access to my passworded track."
        
        But you didn't give any indication not to take it and upon request you voluntarily sent the file.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 13 Oct 2009 @ 12:40pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: yeah yeah, but...
        But I think you have made it more than clear that logic and reasoning is not your intent. You want to discourage anyone from uploading and downloading legal content from the Internet in order to given your non free content a government granted unlevel playing field. Your pro intellectual property intents are clearly
        
        A: selfish
        
        B: malicious
        
        C: you are just trolling, you are really anti intellectual property trying to make intellectual property maximism look bad
        
        However, given the nonsense I've seen come from intellectual property maximists it is very likely you are an intellectual property maximist.
        
        People, this is the kind of mentality held by intellectaul property maximists. They have always claimed that their position is for the benefit of society but as posts like this make it clear intellectual property NEVER HAD ANYTHING to do with what's best for society. The motives have always been selfishly driven and the intent has nothing to do with what's best for society. Given the broken mentality of intellectual property maximists I think we are better off doing away with intellectual property than maintaining the broken system we currently have.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 13 Oct 2009 @ 12:42pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: yeah yeah, but...
        The fact that intellectual property maximists have such a disproportional influence on our government and our laws is an insult to justice.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        DocMenach (profile), 13 Oct 2009 @ 12:50pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: yeah yeah, but...
        They have always claimed that their position is for the benefit of society
        
        Well not quite. It's more of a shell game of reasons: First they say it's the benefit of society, but then someone points out that society does not appear to benefit from monopolies and the locking up of content, so then they say "it's for the artists", but then someone points out that the actual artists receive very little if any of the proceeds form album sales, so then they say "it costs lots of money to produce", but then someone points out that the means to make high quality recording and reproductions has gotten cheaper and cheaper. At some point they end up going back to the "it's the benefit of society", and the cycle just repeats.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Nic, 13 Oct 2009 @ 12:56pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: yeah yeah, but...
        easy tiger, play nice.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        DocMenach (profile), 13 Oct 2009 @ 1:37pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: yeah yeah, but...
        easy tiger, play nice.
        
        I'm trying to play nice. You haven't actually made a coherent argument. You simply keep saying things that don't make any sense in the real world: like how you keep repeating that people should simply know which files are unauthorized.
        
        It sounds to me like you are saying that all files on sharing networks should be assumed to be unauthorized, unless you specifically know otherwise, but that doesn't work. Plenty of content creators have put their works on sharing sites for authorized, free distribution, and more and more artists are embracing free distribution through file sharing networks as a great promotional tool, so it cannot be assumed that everything is unauthorized.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 13 Oct 2009 @ 2:37pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: yeah yeah, but...
        But this is the mentality of intellectual property maximists. It's not about making a coherent argument, it's about maximizing their selfish desires and profiting at everyone elses expense. They've gotten to the point where they're so determined to exploit the public for their private gain that thinking in terms of good logic is irrelevant to their mentality. They keep saying, "intellectual property is for the public good" but it's all lies and their willingness to argue such poor logic further demonstrates this. They're used to (bribed) government officials buying into their broken rationale but the public isn't buying it and they're not used to not having the people they talk to not buy their nonsense.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 13 Oct 2009 @ 3:28pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: yeah yeah, but...
        *and they're not used to having the people they talk to not buy their nonsense.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - PaulT (profile), 13 Oct 2009 @ 9:05am
      
      Re: Re: Re: yeah yeah, but...
      Oh dear, this argument again...
      
      If I take your potatoes or your tea, you no longer have them. You lose the only "copy". You either lose the value of the original or lose money when you need to pay for another.
      
      If I download a track from you, you lose *nothing* tangible. you still have the original to do what you want with. The only thing you've potentially "lost" is an opportunity to sell me another copy. Even that's not totally lost if you manage to convince me to buy a copy anyway or leverage the download to convince me to buy higher-value tangible item.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Nic, 13 Oct 2009 @ 9:08am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: yeah yeah, but...
        But I have "lost" something, which is what my copyright should protect me from losing?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Phillip Vector (profile), 13 Oct 2009 @ 9:16am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: yeah yeah, but...
        "But I have "lost" something, which is what my copyright should protect me from losing?"
        
        Besides the potential sale of the file to that person (who may pay you anyway or may buy something more tangible from you in the future), what exactly have you lost?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Nic, 13 Oct 2009 @ 9:21am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: yeah yeah, but...
        Um, the potential sale of the file to that person...
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Phillip Vector (profile), 13 Oct 2009 @ 9:29am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: yeah yeah, but...
        So you lost nothing but something you may have never gotten anyway.
        
        IMHO, if you put out the file on a free public network that encourages file sharing, you should expect people to copy your file for their use.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        PaulT (profile), 13 Oct 2009 @ 9:53am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: yeah yeah, but...
        No you haven't... you *may* have lost the potential sale if:
        
        - The person decides not to buy the track anyway (many people use P2P to preview albums as the samples on retail sites are often not long enough to decide quality - if the album's good, many will still buy it).
        
        - The person would have bought the track had the P2P download not been available (many just download for the hell of it and would *never* buy music - this has always been the case even back in the days of taping off the radio on cassette. Not to mention that people often discover new music through P2P - they won't buy if they've never heard of you.).
        
        - The person will never buy higher-value items such as concerts and merchandising (why sweat the loss of $1 when you're getting $20 instead?).
        
        Yeah, there will be some lost sales, but to assume that losses are 100% of retail value is idiotic and it's hat's getting the industry into this mess to begin with.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        PaulT (profile), 13 Oct 2009 @ 9:22am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: yeah yeah, but...
        What have you "lost"?
        
        It's not tangible, you see. Copyright is a limited monopoly on the item in question, but who and what it's protecting you from gets fuzzy when it's your own fans doing the copying.
        
        Besides, what if you "lose" the ability to sell me a $1 iTunes download, but gain the ability to sell me a $20 t-shirt or a $50 concert ticket? Surely then it's your own damn fault if you lose money.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Mike Masnick (profile), 13 Oct 2009 @ 10:23am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: yeah yeah, but...
        But I have "lost" something, which is what my copyright should protect me from losing?
        
        A "potential sale" cannot be "lost". If it could, then any time you decided to eat at restaurant A instead of restaurant B, restaurant B could sue restaurant A for that "lost potential sale." There is no such thing as a lost potential sale -- only a failure on your part to convince people to buy.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Nic, 13 Oct 2009 @ 10:36am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: yeah yeah, but...
        not quite.. isn't it more like me going into the restaurant A then while looking at the menu, the waiter gives me a free burger that I eat then leave. Surely the restaurant owner would "sue" the waiter for giving away items (files) that he didn't own (the copyright for) meaning i no longer needed to buy a burger?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 13 Oct 2009 @ 10:53am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: yeah yeah, but...
        Nic, using your analogy, the person that ate the burger (or the file downloader) is not liable then. You seem to be saying the waiter (or file uploader) is liable which goes against your agrument that the downloader should be held liable?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Nic, 13 Oct 2009 @ 11:00am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: yeah yeah, but...
        That's a good point.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        JB, 13 Oct 2009 @ 11:19am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: yeah yeah, but...
        I really hope that made sense in your mind, Nic, because it makes no sense in this discussion.
        
        First, you are again comparing a tangible good against an infinite good. What if the waiter sent you an e-mail with a copy of the menu attached? That would be a much more appropriate comparison.
        
        Now that we have this comparison established, what if you were to download the menus to both restaurants, A & B? We have not 'stolen' the menu, no physical media was used and the original is still on the server. We can now make an educated decision about where we would like to spend our money. Maybe restaurant A is giving out a free burger if you show them the downloaded menu from restaurant B. They may have won you over and you may or may not purchase more food.
        
        Has restaurant B lost the potential sale to us? If you say yes, then how do you know how much that person would have purchased? Would they have continued to dine in the future? These questions are along the same lines as: Would the person have contracted salmonella from eating at restaurant B? Would the person have slipped on a small raised spot on the rug in the dinning room? Would the person have been a reviewer and had a bad experience? You don't know these things and it is pointless to extrapolate a value on the 'lost sale' from the person's choice. Instead, you should try to find out why they didn't choose your restaurant and work to bring in more customers.
        
        By the way, Chick-fil-a seems to be doing just fine and they regularly give away free sandwiches (no purchase necessary). Guess what; I take them up on it and will typically buy a lemonade while I'm there. Good luck trying to explain that one away.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Nic, 13 Oct 2009 @ 11:42am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: yeah yeah, but...
        Eh? Downloading the menu has got nothing to do with my original strawman (which by the way was blown out of the water by Anonymous Coward above)
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 13 Oct 2009 @ 12:20pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: yeah yeah, but...
        It's like going to restaurant A, and ordering a side of fries, and manager of restaurant B coming and complaining about the poor lighting in the bathroom, but then restaurant A tells them that they can't get ahold of a technician, on account of it being monday. Restaurant B then sues restaurant A, demanding that they stop using their parking spaces, then restaurant A bribes a garbage truck to dump their garbage in front of restaurant B. Then your fries get mixed with the garbage, but you don't sue them because you're on a diet. Immediately afterwards, the cook runs outside yelling at some bum, who just happened to be the long lost brother of the manager of restaurant A, who claims that he is entitled to 66% of the lifetime profits of said restaurant.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Nic, 13 Oct 2009 @ 12:28pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: yeah yeah, but...
        Finally, a coherent argument.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        DocMenach (profile), 13 Oct 2009 @ 12:33pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: yeah yeah, but...
        Finally, a coherent argument.
        
        Yeah, too bad we can't get one from you. So far your argument has been: "you just know" and "Ignorance is no excuse".
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        JB, 13 Oct 2009 @ 12:40pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: yeah yeah, but...
        Wait, wasn't that the plot line for [insert random TV show/movie]? Give me $650 to settle or we will go to court...
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - thublihnk (profile), 13 Oct 2009 @ 9:05am
      
      Re: Re: Re: yeah yeah, but...
      Equating downloading to stealing. Not true. I just cloned your potatoes. You still have your potatoes. Your potatoes are in no way less valuable. Also, did anyone else catch the word 'crime' in there?
      It's not just a copy, it's a civil matter.
      Not a crime.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Anonymous Coward, 13 Oct 2009 @ 9:08am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: yeah yeah, but...
        Standard dumb answer.
        
        Music isn't a physical product, it's rights granted. You can replicate the product, but you cannot replicate the rights to use it.
        
        Theft of services, aka, theft. Grow up.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 13 Oct 2009 @ 9:11am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: yeah yeah, but...
        Moronic shill, aka, you.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        thublihnk (profile), 13 Oct 2009 @ 9:41am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: yeah yeah, but...
        Oh! Really? If I just bought the rights to a song, via iTunes or whatever you will, then those are my rights? Forever? So I can just download them again from iTunes whenever I want, for the rest of my life? And if I'm being /sold/ rights here, as you so claim, can I re-sell those rights? And since I have the rights to those songs, can I play them in public whenever I please?
        
        Well, sir, if that's what you're claiming, then yes. I'm wrong. That's just a daaandy system, sign me up.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        ChurchHatesTucker (profile), 13 Oct 2009 @ 9:41am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: yeah yeah, but...
        "Music isn't a physical product, it's rights granted."
        
        So if we just copy the physical product, no harm done, right?
        
        Oh wait, it's the government-granted monopoly we've run afoul of. Damn commies ruin everything.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 13 Oct 2009 @ 12:51pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: yeah yeah, but...
        Wow, theft of services.
        
        So say, you have a house painting service. I come to your business, and steal a service from you, making you paint my house for free. That's so cool.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Dark Helmet (profile), 13 Oct 2009 @ 9:10am
      
      Re: Re: Re: yeah yeah, but...
      "don't want to spark a flame war, but..."
      
      FLAME ON!...just kidding.
      
      "If I left a bag of potatoes out on my front lawn, i wouldn't expect people to just take some. They are still my potatoes."
      
      I don't think the analogy is complete. As I understand the way trackers work, it would be as if you left your infinite supply of potatoes on the front lawn and then sent a letter to all of your neighbors letting them know that you had put them out there and that they were available. Then when they come by and take one, you send them a follow up letter informing them that they owe you money.
      
      "Same applies here: just because the files are available, still doesn't give people the right to take them."
      
      I think the law disagrees with you, in that if the rights holder is MAKING them available, downloader DO have the right to take them. But even there is some twisted interpretation of the law that says that isn't true....why, as the rights holders, are they willing to rub people's noses in shit? They go up and down the pulpit spouting about the EVIL of filesharing, then utilize it to entrap people?
      
      Odd.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Patryk, 13 Oct 2009 @ 9:22am
      
      Re: Re: Re: yeah yeah, but...
      The difference here is that they're putting their content ON sharing networks which are INTENDED to share content. That's like putting a sign on your front lawn (in front of your sack of potatoes) that says "FREE", and then calling the police when people take your stuff.
      It doesn't work. Isn't that a form of entrapment?
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 13 Oct 2009 @ 9:49am
      
      Re: Re: Re: yeah yeah, but...
      NOBODY IS TAKING ANYTHING!!!! FILE SHARING IS LIKE LIGHTING SOMEONE ELSE'S CANDLE, YOUR FLAME DOESN'T LOSE ANY OF IT'S LIGHT.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Anonymous Coward, 13 Oct 2009 @ 11:46am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: yeah yeah, but...
        Nothing quite like trying to quote Thomas Jefferson using a cherry picked sentence. Try reading the entirely of Jefferson's letter to Issac McPherson.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Shvegas (profile), 13 Oct 2009 @ 10:06am
      
      Re: Re: Re: yeah yeah, but...
      So by this rationale there should be no problem making files available. Additionally if you put a bag of potatoes on my front lawn then they are not your potatoes or at least it seems reasonable for me to pick them up and do what I want with them.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Anonymous Coward, 13 Oct 2009 @ 11:56am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: yeah yeah, but...
        "Additionally if you put a bag of potatoes on my front lawn"
        
        Your front lawn is presumed to be your private property. However, if you put it on the street, which is public property, that's a different story.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - wvhillbilly (profile), 13 Oct 2009 @ 1:22pm
      
      Re: Re: Re: yeah yeah, but...
      Try putting your potatoes out curbside. Then the garbage truck will pick them up and you can sue the city for stealing them. ;-()
      
      /sarcasm
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - jkgamer, 2 Feb 2010 @ 1:15pm
      
      Re: Re: Re: yeah yeah, but...
      That's not exactly a proper analogy. First off there is an expectation that something on your front lawn is still your property and not meant for anyone else. Same goes with putting a brief case down next to you as you sit in a cafe.
      
      However, placing that bag of potatoes in the middle of a public place (the internet) and then screaming thief when someone picks it up won't get you much sympathy in the court system. Placing your brief case next to the front door of that cafe without any means of protection will get you the same result. (If Homeland Security doesn't blow it up first.)
      
      Why shouldn't placing something on the internet for all of the public to access not warrant the same level of scrutiny? They are inviting the public to download the material without any warning of copyright. Not everything digital in this world is owned by some corporation. (Although, I'm sure that they are working on changing that.) Believe it or not, there are still many works that are in the public domain. And that fact that I may use the words This Is It in this comment does not make it a copyrighted work of Michael Jackson or his rights holders.
      
      I will grant you the fact that most of the downloaders are aware or at least have an idea that they are downloading copyrighted works illegally. But is it legal or just to extort money from someone who may not?
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Phillip Vector (profile), 13 Oct 2009 @ 8:51am
  
  Re: yeah yeah, but...
  I mean, it's like me handing you a fish that I bought from the local deli and then threatening to take you to court because you stole my fish.
  
  I can't see how anyone would pay the charge. What really worries me about this is that this may count as a strike for those countries adopting the "3 strikes and you are out" law.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- PaulT (profile), 13 Oct 2009 @ 9:01am
  
  Re: yeah yeah, but...
  Might as well regurgitate the usual responses...
  
  1. The evidence used by these agencies are shaky at best - often an easily-spoofed IP address with no proof of who was actually infringing (if any infringement was actually taking place - they have got it wrong many times). "Don't do the crime" doesn't count if you're innocent to begin with.
  
  2. The fact that these fines are being issued on the claims of a biased 3rd party with "infringers" being discouraged from defending themselves in court. Due process is not being served.
  
  3. Once infringement has actually been proven, the fines are usually well out of the range of value of the actual product. Yes, these are meant to be punitive, but a $650 (or thousands) for something sold for $1? Is there any other situation where you can be automatically be sued for 650x or more of the cost of an item being illegally distributed for $0?
  
  4. On top of all that, there's little real evidence that infringers cost the content industry as much as is claimed. In fact, many studies show that the music industry is *growing* in value (just not the recording part) and that the heaviest downloaders are also the people spending the most on music purchases.
  
  It's not about whether or not it's "fashionable" but whether the view is supported by evidence, productive and fair. It's not any of these things, hence the outcry.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Nic, 13 Oct 2009 @ 9:10am
    
    Re: Re: yeah yeah, but...
    Agreed.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Designerfx (profile), 13 Oct 2009 @ 9:17am
  
  Re: yeah yeah, but...
  uh, downloading a song is not infringing on copyright. That has *never* ever been proved in court, and fair use defends such.
  
  sending a file to other people, that can be infringement.
  
  get it right.
  
  Your views are unpopular because they are factually incorrect.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Nic, 13 Oct 2009 @ 9:19am
    
    Re: Re: yeah yeah, but...
    Hmm. If that is true, I stand corrected (said the man in the orthopedic shoes).
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Mike Masnick (profile), 13 Oct 2009 @ 10:28am
    
    Re: Re: yeah yeah, but...
    uh, downloading a song is not infringing on copyright.
    
    Actually, it is. Copyright covers a variety of different rights, including making a copy (downloading) and distributing (uploading).
    
    That has *never* ever been proved in court, and fair use defends such.
    
    Again, this is incorrect. In both the Jammie Thomas and Joel Tenenbaum trials, the courts found them guilty of downloading as well as uploading.
    
    Where I think you're getting confused is that rights holders have a lot more trouble suing people just for downloading, because it's harder to identify downloaders. It's much easier to identify uploaders, so most lawsuits start out against uploaders. However, the scheme described above lets them go after downloaders as well.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - JB, 13 Oct 2009 @ 11:35am
      
      Re: Re: Re: yeah yeah, but...
      Mike, shhh! You're ruining our case. If we obfuscate reality, then people will bow to our will.
      
      Oh, well, I guess our cover is blown.
      
      /. sarcasm -R -o
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Brian Dahlquist (profile), 13 Oct 2009 @ 9:28am
  
  Re: yeah yeah, but...
  So a grandmother who ALREADY BOUGHT the CDs should be fined $20,000 for downloading the songs regardless of from where? If your selling the downloaded/illegal content sure, if its for personal use then it gets into some grey area of would they have bought it in the first place if they couldn't download it.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 13 Oct 2009 @ 5:08pm
  
  Re: yeah yeah, but...
  1) What law EXACTLY does _downloading_ violate? Oh yeah, none. No crime = no time.
  
  2) There are 10,000 places to aquire an mp3, and it's not my duty to verify that they are legal. That's the rights-holders job. If a source is authorized to offer a song online, then I'm in the clear for downloading it. These cases do not go to court for that very reason. Feel free to point me to a winning court case involving only downloading and NO distribution. Good luck with that.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Mike Masnick (profile), 13 Oct 2009 @ 5:56pm
    
    Re: Re: yeah yeah, but...
    1) What law EXACTLY does _downloading_ violate? Oh yeah, none. No crime = no time.
    
    Title 17 106(1) "the owner of copyright under this title has the exclusive rights to do and to authorize... to reproduce the copyrighted work in copies or phonorecords."
    
    While I tend to agree with the point you are making, do not keep claiming that downloading an unauthorized offering is not infringing on copyright. It may very well be a violation of the exclusive right of the holder to reproduce the works.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 13 Oct 2009 @ 9:02am

At the end of the day, all this is doing is making it way more expensive to download illegally than it is to buy legally.

There should be risk to breaking the law. If you don't like it, too bad. What these companies are doing isn't anywhere near as bad as the widespread theft of content.

Socialist Mike strikes again.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- thublihnk (profile), 13 Oct 2009 @ 9:08am
  
  Re:
  Anonymous Coward proves he didn't get his name for nothin'... again.
  
  What they're doing is fraudulent and extortionist. Shouldn't there be a penalty for that too?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 13 Oct 2009 @ 11:23am
    
    Re: Re:
    If there is one, if you can prove intent, then it's a small penalty compared to the penalty of infringement. The laws are one sided in favor of extortionists.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - thublihnk (profile), 13 Oct 2009 @ 12:03pm
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      Who said the laws were right?
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 13 Oct 2009 @ 9:12am
  
  Re:
  Not theft, try again (or don't bother).
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 13 Oct 2009 @ 9:11am

Excuse me for having no sympathy towards those who get caught in the sting.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Phillip Vector (profile), 13 Oct 2009 @ 9:19am
  
  Re:
  Sorry.. I didn't know they were the police now. :)
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Chris Rhodes (profile), 13 Oct 2009 @ 9:19am

Question: Is it actually against the law to download copyrighted materials? I was under the impression that it was only against the law to offer unauthorized copyrighted content for download, which is why the RIAA goes after uploaders and not downloaders.

If I print out a stack of copyrighted photos and stand on a street corner handing them out to passers-by, the copyright owner would certainly have a case against me, but not necessarily the people that I gave photos to.

Have there been any cases of these companies actually taking downloaders to court if they refuse to pay?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Mike Masnick (profile), 13 Oct 2009 @ 10:31am
  
  Re:
  Question: Is it actually against the law to download copyrighted materials? I was under the impression that it was only against the law to offer unauthorized copyrighted content for download, which is why the RIAA goes after uploaders and not downloaders.
  
  Yes, it is against the law, in *most cases* to download copyrighted materials without authorization. Copyright law includes a right against reproduction, which a download violates (if there isn't fair use).
  
  Your impression is incorrect, based on the fact that the RIAA mainly went after those who uploaded -- but that was because it's much easier to identify uploaders than downloaders. The only real way to identify downloaders is to offer the content yourself -- which is what's happening in the story above.
  
  If I print out a stack of copyrighted photos and stand on a street corner handing them out to passers-by, the copyright owner would certainly have a case against me, but not necessarily the people that I gave photos to.
  
  That's a little different, actually, because the people you gave the photos to are not making a reproduction. But if you download something, you are -- and you may be violating the copyright holder's reproduction rights.
  
  Have there been any cases of these companies actually taking downloaders to court if they refuse to pay?
  
  Both Jammie Thomas and Joel Tenenbaum were found by the courts to have engaged in uploading and downloading...
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Chris Rhodes (profile), 13 Oct 2009 @ 12:16pm
    
    Re: Re:
    I stand corrected.
    Have there been any cases of these companies suing people who only downloaded?
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Brian (profile), 13 Oct 2009 @ 1:13pm
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      You mean like the thousands of cases where the RIAA goes after people who downloaded songs such as can be found by a simple google search?
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Chris Rhodes (profile), 13 Oct 2009 @ 2:56pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Unfortunately, most news stories and such don't make the distinction between uploaders and downloaders, because downloaders are often caught by their uploading (as Mike pointed out).
        
        Since the only practical way for a group such as the RIAA to catch a person who only downloads copyrighted materials is to offer that material up themselves and see who connects (as the original posting is about), I was curious to see if any of these cases had actually been taken to court successfully.
        
        I appreciate the sarcastic and unhelpful response to my question, though. Thanks.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Nick (profile), 13 Oct 2009 @ 9:24am

"Making available" no longer "theft"?
If all the lawsuits from entertainment industry associations are based on the claim that "making available" is illegal, then shouldn't that apply here as well?

And if the "making available" part is authorized (as they say it is), then where is the problem with downloading these authorized files?

I can't help but see a parallel with police busting a drug dealer or a prostitute. A cop posing as a prostitute can't actively solicit a potential customer in order to bust him for pursuing a prostitute. And yes, I realize these media companies aren't officers of the law, but it's difficult to see how their behavior isn't just as illegal.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 13 Oct 2009 @ 9:26am
  
  Re: "Making available" no longer "theft"?
  And if the "making available" part is authorized (as they say it is), then where is the problem with downloading these authorized files?
  
  making available does not create authorization. The crack dealers are making crack available, it doesn't suddenly make it legal. There is no magic that happens on the internet to turn copyright violation into advertising, unless you live in the Socialist Republic of Mike.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - thublihnk (profile), 13 Oct 2009 @ 9:35am
    
    Re: Re: "Making available" no longer "theft"?
    We meet again, AC!
    
    Still slinging 'Mike's a Socialist' around, are you? Well, if you paid attention, he's actually arguing against government protection of failing business models.
    
    There is, however, a magic that happens when a rights holder signs over the rights to distribute their materials to another group, which then uploads them as torrents. That, my friend, is authorized downloading.
    
    I know, it seems like magic, but it's not.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Chris Rhodes (profile), 13 Oct 2009 @ 9:38am
    
    Re: Re: "Making available" no longer "theft"?
    Bad analogy.
    
    1) Crack is illegal to possess. At all.
    2) You are allowed to possess copyrighted material, as long as the rights holder has allowed you to.
    
    If the rights holder is the one giving files to you, it's hard to see how that violates copyright law. Their computer is literally sending the content to your computer.
    
    If I take a picture (and therefore own the copyright), make a copy, and send it to you in the mail, can I wait outside your house with the police and have them raid it when you bring your mail in?
    
    After all, just because I've sent you my picture doesn't mean you have the authorization to look at it. Filthy criminal.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - John Fenderson (profile), 13 Oct 2009 @ 9:46am
      
      Re: Re: Re: "Making available" no longer "theft"?
      "You are allowed to possess copyrighted material, as long as the rights holder has allowed you to."
      
      Actually, in the US, anyway, you are allowed to possess copyrighted material even if the rights holder has not allowed you to. You are not allowed to distribute or, under certain circumstances, reproduce it. But possession is OK.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Chris Rhodes (profile), 13 Oct 2009 @ 9:57am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: "Making available" no longer "theft"?
        Agreed, as I noted above. Poor wording on my part for this post.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Nic, 13 Oct 2009 @ 9:46am
      
      Re: Re: Re: "Making available" no longer "theft"?
      But what if you put the picture on your website for your Mum to see. If I stumble across the URL and copy the file, print it and put it on my wall. I've broken your copyright. Just because the file was on a publicly available URL does not give me the right to copy and use the file!
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - baditup (profile), 13 Oct 2009 @ 9:50am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: "Making available" no longer "theft"?
        that's just idiocy on the part of the poster because they could simply email it or print and send it if they were worried about people stealing it. These companies are intentionally putting them out there with the HOPES of it getting downloaded, not just for one specific person.
        
        Different scenario.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        NIc, 13 Oct 2009 @ 9:54am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: "Making available" no longer "theft"?
        then isn't it like a sting? A police woman walking the streets waiting to be approached by a punter.
        
        Aaaannnnnyyyyyy waaayyyyyyy...
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        DocMenach (profile), 13 Oct 2009 @ 10:16am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: "Making available" no longer "theft"?
        then isn't it like a sting? A police woman walking the streets waiting to be approached by a punter.
        
        Not quite. It's a sting when the police do it. This is more like if I started a private business where I put girls on the street to solicit Johns(or punters) then after the "transaction" the girls demand $100,000 (650 times the normal cost of a prostitute) or else we are going to have them arrested.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Nic, 13 Oct 2009 @ 10:25am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: "Making available" no longer "theft"?
        That'a a great idea! www.pseudohookers.com
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Chris Rhodes (profile), 13 Oct 2009 @ 10:00am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: "Making available" no longer "theft"?
        Technically, when I view that webpage, my computer has downloaded a copy of that picture into my browser.
        
        So according to your logic, even if I don't print it out, I'm an infringer just for going to your web page and you can demand money from me, yes?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        JB, 13 Oct 2009 @ 12:54pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: "Making available" no longer "theft"?
        Finally, someone has a brain. Anytime you view something in an Internet browser, you are downloading that content to your local file system. Therefore, any copyrighted images have immediately been infringed upon if they have an anti-reproduction clause; unless this is considered fair-use. If it is fair-use, then it doesn't take a large logical leap to conclude that retaining the image on your file system (regardless of location) is legal. This also would apply to any documents or videos viewed or music listened to. The file has been legally copied to your file system and therefore has become your property. If it is not, then a malicious software creator could sue you for misuse of their software when it was placed on your computer.
        
        Well, this comment has gotten out of hand and is quickly spiraling toward the end of my mental attention, but I hope I've made at least someone think...
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - DocMenach (profile), 13 Oct 2009 @ 10:08am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: "Making available" no longer "theft"?
        But what if you put the picture on your website for your Mum to see. If I stumble across the URL and copy the file, print it and put it on my wall. I've broken your copyright. Just because the file was on a publicly available URL does not give me the right to copy and use the file!
        
        Wrong. There actually is no copyright infringement there. Now if I download that photo, then start selling or giving away copies of it without your permission then there is a copyright issue there, but me downloading it printing it out and putting it on my wall is not. There are plenty of ways to make it so that the file can only be accessed by your grandmother (such as a secure download server, or an email), but if you just put it up with in a public place expecting that only your grandmother will download it then that is just nonsensical.
        
        I like the potatoes example, except I would say it would be like bringing your potatoes to a free trade party, where everything is expected to be free. Then when someone takes a potato you grab them and tell them that if they don't pay you $100 for that potato then you are going to sue them for $5,000 for stealing your potato, and you have photographs of them taking the potato from your bag, so they better pay up or it's gonna cost them a lot more just to defend themselves.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Anonymous Coward, 13 Oct 2009 @ 11:52am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: "Making available" no longer "theft"?
        What if you put the picture on public property only for your mom to see (ie: you posted it on a public light poll) without any signs that says this is only for your mom. Then if someone else took it and put it on their wall, is it infringement? No, you put it on public property. If you put it in your backyard for your mom to see, where it is presumed that no one else has legal access, that's a different story.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 13 Oct 2009 @ 11:55am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: "Making available" no longer "theft"?
        Thank you for clarification. I never realized that a folder with files on a personal computer and capable of being uploaded reside on public property.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 13 Oct 2009 @ 12:12pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: "Making available" no longer "theft"?
        When you offer it to someone to download you are making it public and when you send it to someone you are intentionally making it public.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 13 Oct 2009 @ 12:18pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: "Making available" no longer "theft"?
        Yes, but you are the one VOLUNTARILY uploading it upon my request. So it's like me going in front of your house, on public property, and asking you to throw me a potato. When you voluntarily threw the potato to me without asking for money the potato travels from private property to public property. Same thing when you upload a file to me upon my request, you are intentionally sending me it and sending the file off of your private property.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 13 Oct 2009 @ 12:20pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: "Making available" no longer "theft"?
        and when you voluntarily send the file off of your private property without asking for money it is presumed to be a freely available public file, same thing with the potato.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 13 Oct 2009 @ 12:31pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: "Making available" no longer "theft"?
        But in all seriousness, intellectual property maximists, with their completely broken logic, have made it abundantly clear that they are not interested in promoting the benefit of society. Their motives behind wanting more restrictive intellectual property laws are completely selfish and have nothing to do with their desire to benefit the public. and if the intent of their intellectual property position is not to help society why should we believe that intellectual property maximism is good for society. If their intent is selfish and not for the benefit of society then they should not even be considered when making laws and they should be ignored completely. They should have no say in the law whatsoever. The fact that the laws reflect their selfish position to such a great extent is testimony to how broken our laws are. On this blog intellectual property maximists have made it more than abundantly clear that they are not willing to listen to reason or be reasonable, they want laws that make no sense and are entirely unfair for everyone. Why should lawmakers even pay any attention to these selfish hedonists when their pro intellectual property position is ever so clearly not motivated by a desire to benefit society. Why should we trust them when they claim that their position benefits society despite the complete lack of evidence and the obvious fact that they are not remotely interested in benefiting society whatsoever.
        
        While I do think SOME intellectual property can be a good thing if implemented property (but it should be the exception and not the rule and it shouldn't last nearly as long as it currently does) I also think that we are better off without intellectual property than what we have now.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 13 Oct 2009 @ 12:28pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: "Making available" no longer "theft"?
        C:UsersACPrivate Folder
        Share with: Grandmother
        
        C:UsersACPublic Folder
        Share with: Everyone
        
        See any difference? Maybe you should set your permissions correctly.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Nic, 13 Oct 2009 @ 11:58am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: "Making available" no longer "theft"?
        I didn't put the picture on public property, it's MY server, like putting it in my shed, then posting signs around town telling my mum where to find it...
        
        (streeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeetch)
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 13 Oct 2009 @ 12:45pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: "Making available" no longer "theft"?
        "I didn't put the picture on public property, it's MY server, like putting it in my shed, then posting signs around town telling my mum where to find it...
        
        (streeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeetch)"
        
        By this logic than anything on the internet is private and any viewing of anything is illegal. I have never heard of a public server. Every server is SOMEONE's server. If you make it publicly accessible, it is public.
        
        Bank of America's website is public. Their servers that sit behind firewalls that you would need to hack through - those are private.
        
        If someone had to hack through your security to get to it, then its private. If all they needed to do was a google search for "pictures for mom" then its fair game.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Me, 13 Oct 2009 @ 10:16am
      
      Re: Re: Re: "Making available" no longer "theft"?
      No, their computer is giving you the content after you request it from them. A minor, but possible important, difference.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Chronno S. Trigger (profile), 13 Oct 2009 @ 12:41pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: "Making available" no longer "theft"?
        No, your computer is requesting the file after getting the information for that file that they uploaded to the tracker or the torrent website. The person who intentionally put the file into a shared folder initiated the entire process. These people are using P2P to catch people who download, thus they know well enough how P2P works so they must know that they initiate the process. They don't have an "I didn't know" excuse. They are freely sharing, and what they are doing is extortion on a grand scale.
        
        They know how P2P works, they know that their PCs automatically say yes to the request, so they know that they are sharing. If they didn't want it shared than they should have set the default to no.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 13 Oct 2009 @ 9:43am
    
    Re: Re: "Making available" no longer "theft"?
    Yes, arguing against arbitrary government intervention to prop up businesses is so socialist.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Nick (profile), 13 Oct 2009 @ 11:29am
    
    Re: Re: "Making available" no longer "theft"?
    You missed the point. In this case, the "making available" part was authorized by the associations themselves. I was referring to the article, not to some "magic that happens on the internet."
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 13 Oct 2009 @ 12:10pm
    
    Re: Re: "Making available" no longer "theft"?
    Oh, I see what you did there. How about this: sure, the file is available, but what if it was put there by... the DEVIL? Then downloading it would be a sin.
    
    What if, you downloaded the file from Hitler's computer? That can't be good, therefore downloading files is bad.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
baditup (profile), 13 Oct 2009 @ 9:41am

ok, imagine....
if you will, a situation in which the downloader actually OWNS the files/songs/album/movie in question. What then? That SHOULD give him the right to download it, right? What then if that downloader was sent a letter? And wtf ever happened to mix tapes? I remember the day when I'd go dub off all my friends' tapes. Was THAT not illegal? Why did they make devices that did it? I dunno man, all this attempt at, essentially, making what everyone already used to do illegal is ridiculous.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Chuck Norris' Enemy (deceased) (profile), 13 Oct 2009 @ 9:57am

Letters to all!
Why don't they just send a letter out to everyone? Everyone is guilty of 'stealing' some sort of copyrighted material in their eyes; music, movies, news, etc. With 25% returns they will be in the $$$.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Dmitriy Plaks (profile), 13 Oct 2009 @ 10:53am
  
  Re: Letters to all!
  And once you hit a few judges with that letter maybe that would put a dent into RIAA's campaign to get everyone's money.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 13 Oct 2009 @ 10:17am

With more and more small artists (and occassionally even some large artists and labels) intentionally giving away their music on file sharing networks to promote themselves, how is one expected to know what is ok to download and what is not?

For that matter, what if you bought a song from an online music store but they didn't have the rights to that particular song. Would the person who bought the song be liable? ...and would your anwser be different if the online music store was giving the song away for free?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 13 Oct 2009 @ 10:28am
  
  Re:
  Should it be the consumer/downloader's responsibility to investigate every song they down load from either a file sharing network or an online music store to see if the music is properly licensed?
  
  I see this becoming a bigger issue if more artists decide to give their music away for free via file sharing networks. At what point will one have a reasonable belief that the music they are downloading is intentially being distributed by the copyright holder?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
NullOp, 13 Oct 2009 @ 10:24am

Downloaders
Yes, downloaders are breaking the law, plain and simple. Is it really robbery having some company track and notify downloaders? Probably. I would like to see a breakdown of how many people do they take to court for downloading compared to the number threatened. To me a low rate would indicate they are in it for the "easy pickings" rather than the concern for the artists welfare. The industries concern for the artists welfare is totally laughable.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Richard (profile), 13 Oct 2009 @ 3:00pm
  
  Re: Downloaders
  The law on downloading is actually quite simple. Either both parties to the download are breaking the law or neither party. There is no circumstance in which only the downloader is guilty of infringement. Digiprotect is not "leaving a bicycle" against the fence they are standing by the photocopy machine offering to make copies for anyone who wants one.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 13 Oct 2009 @ 10:51am

If the copyright holder in any way puts his work on the net with out a lock (paywall, DRM, password, yada yada) aka putting it on a web server in basic HTML or via a torrent network he is saying "I have this file, its free!" By clicking on the link you are saying "I would like that file" The copyright holder responds "here you go!"

later on the lawyer from the copy right holder says "you cant do that! you have to pay!"

The last part is what everyone is fighting over, which is "Lawyer, we have a formal agreement, He said the file was free, I asked for a copy of the file, he gave me the file"

Now there could be special issues, for instance he might not allow me to give the file to other people, which would be infringement, but so long as he is giving the file away I can just send my friends to the copyright holder giving files away (via his own, authorized, automated script).

This will pass the sniff test in court if you knew or had reason to believe the person you got the file from was the rights holder. In fact you could plea something to the effect of "nothing you have charged me with is against the law" if you had prior knowledge of the scam.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 13 Oct 2009 @ 12:04pm
  
  Re:
  Well, it's like if there is a bunch of magazines with a sign that says "take one" and I took one and later on the person giving it away says, "infringement" and sues. The sign that says "take one" without any price tag indicates that the item is free.
  
  Sometimes if I walk around school people hand me stuff, business cards and fliers, etc... When they put it in front of me they are saying, "this is here, take one." I take it, they hand it to me, and it's mine, presumed to be free. They can't later claim, "infringement" and sue.
  
  It's the same thing here. The website says, "this is here for you to take" I clicked it and the server then VOLUNTARILY gave me it without asking for money upon my request. They can't later then sue for infringement.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
AC, 13 Oct 2009 @ 12:27pm

my 2 cents
From an older TD post:

"To achieve the purpose outlined in clause 1, LICENSOR grants DIGIPROTECT the exclusive right to make the movies listed in Appendix 1 worldwide available to the public via remote computer networks, so-called peer-2-peer and internet file sharing networks such as e-Donkey, Kazaa, Bitorrent, etc. for the duration of this agreement"

If DIGIPROTECT has been granted a license to distibute the files via bittorrent etc., then wouldn't downloading the files be legit? I have to believe that there is more to the licensing agreement that this for their extortion (and I do believe that is extortion) letters to hold water.
If Digiprotect have a license to distribute files and are within the limits of their license to do so, then people who consume the files that Digiprotect have distributed do so legally. Is that incorrect?

If Digiprotect's letters are not extortion, I need to start mass mailing some extortion letters myself. If 25% of the people that receive their $650 letters pay up with no questions asked, that's $160 each. 40000 letters will set me up to retire! woo hoo!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Captain Obvious, 13 Oct 2009 @ 12:39pm

BY LAW, COPYING/INFRINGEMENT IS NOT THEFT
BY LAW, COPYING/INFRINGEMENT IS NOT THEFT
BY LAW, COPYING/INFRINGEMENT IS NOT THEFT
BY LAW, COPYING/INFRINGEMENT IS NOT THEFT
BY LAW, COPYING/INFRINGEMENT IS NOT THEFT
BY LAW, COPYING/INFRINGEMENT IS NOT THEFT
BY LAW, COPYING/INFRINGEMENT IS NOT THEFT
BY LAW, COPYING/INFRINGEMENT IS NOT THEFT
BY LAW, COPYING/INFRINGEMENT IS NOT THEFT
BY LAW, COPYING/INFRINGEMENT IS NOT THEFT
BY LAW, COPYING/INFRINGEMENT IS NOT THEFT
BY LAW, COPYING/INFRINGEMENT IS NOT THEFT
BY LAW, COPYING/INFRINGEMENT IS NOT THEFT
BY LAW, COPYING/INFRINGEMENT IS NOT THEFT
BY LAW, COPYING/INFRINGEMENT IS NOT THEFT
BY LAW, COPYING/INFRINGEMENT IS NOT THEFT
BY LAW, COPYING/INFRINGEMENT IS NOT THEFT
BY LAW, COPYING/INFRINGEMENT IS NOT THEFT
BY LAW, COPYING/INFRINGEMENT IS NOT THEFT
BY LAW, COPYING/INFRINGEMENT IS NOT THEFT
BY LAW, COPYING/INFRINGEMENT IS NOT THEFT
BY LAW, COPYING/INFRINGEMENT IS NOT THEFT
BY LAW, COPYING/INFRINGEMENT IS NOT THEFT
BY LAW, COPYING/INFRINGEMENT IS NOT THEFT
BY LAW, COPYING/INFRINGEMENT IS NOT THEFT
BY LAW, COPYING/INFRINGEMENT IS NOT THEFT
BY LAW, COPYING/INFRINGEMENT IS NOT THEFT
BY LAW, COPYING/INFRINGEMENT IS NOT THEFT
BY LAW, COPYING/INFRINGEMENT IS NOT THEFT
BY LAW, COPYING/INFRINGEMENT IS NOT THEFT
BY LAW, COPYING/INFRINGEMENT IS NOT THEFT
BY LAW, COPYING/INFRINGEMENT IS NOT THEFT
BY LAW, COPYING/INFRINGEMENT IS NOT THEFT
BY LAW, COPYING/INFRINGEMENT IS NOT THEFT
BY LAW, COPYING/INFRINGEMENT IS NOT THEFT
BY LAW, COPYING/INFRINGEMENT IS NOT THEFT
BY LAW, COPYING/INFRINGEMENT IS NOT THEFT
BY LAW, COPYING/INFRINGEMENT IS NOT THEFT
BY LAW, COPYING/INFRINGEMENT IS NOT THEFT
BY LAW, COPYING/INFRINGEMENT IS NOT THEFT
BY LAW, COPYING/INFRINGEMENT IS NOT THEFT
BY LAW, COPYING/INFRINGEMENT IS NOT THEFT
BY LAW, COPYING/INFRINGEMENT IS NOT THEFT
BY LAW, COPYING/INFRINGEMENT IS NOT THEFT
BY LAW, COPYING/INFRINGEMENT IS NOT THEFT
BY LAW, COPYING/INFRINGEMENT IS NOT THEFT
BY LAW, COPYING/INFRINGEMENT IS NOT THEFT
BY LAW, COPYING/INFRINGEMENT IS NOT THEFT
BY LAW, COPYING/INFRINGEMENT IS NOT THEFT
BY LAW, COPYING/INFRINGEMENT IS NOT THEFT
BY LAW, COPYING/INFRINGEMENT IS NOT THEFT
BY LAW, COPYING/INFRINGEMENT IS NOT THEFT
BY LAW, COPYING/INFRINGEMENT IS NOT THEFT
BY LAW, COPYING/INFRINGEMENT IS NOT THEFT
BY LAW, COPYING/INFRINGEMENT IS NOT THEFT
BY LAW, COPYING/INFRINGEMENT IS NOT THEFT
BY LAW, COPYING/INFRINGEMENT IS NOT THEFT
BY LAW, COPYING/INFRINGEMENT IS NOT THEFT
BY LAW, COPYING/INFRINGEMENT IS NOT THEFT
BY LAW, COPYING/INFRINGEMENT IS NOT THEFT
BY LAW, COPYING/INFRINGEMENT IS NOT THEFT
BY LAW, COPYING/INFRINGEMENT IS NOT THEFT
BY LAW, COPYING/INFRINGEMENT IS NOT THEFT
BY LAW, COPYING/INFRINGEMENT IS NOT THEFT
BY LAW, COPYING/INFRINGEMENT IS NOT THEFT
BY LAW, COPYING/INFRINGEMENT IS NOT THEFT
BY LAW, COPYING/INFRINGEMENT IS NOT THEFT
BY LAW, COPYING/INFRINGEMENT IS NOT THEFT
BY LAW, COPYING/INFRINGEMENT IS NOT THEFT
BY LAW, COPYING/INFRINGEMENT IS NOT THEFT
BY LAW, COPYING/INFRINGEMENT IS NOT THEFT
BY LAW, COPYING/INFRINGEMENT IS NOT THEFT
BY LAW, COPYING/INFRINGEMENT IS NOT THEFT
BY LAW, COPYING/INFRINGEMENT IS NOT THEFT
BY LAW, COPYING/INFRINGEMENT IS NOT THEFT
BY LAW, COPYING/INFRINGEMENT IS NOT THEFT
BY LAW, COPYING/INFRINGEMENT IS NOT THEFT
BY LAW, COPYING/INFRINGEMENT IS NOT THEFT
BY LAW, COPYING/INFRINGEMENT IS NOT THEFT
BY LAW, COPYING/INFRINGEMENT IS NOT THEFT
BY LAW, COPYING/INFRINGEMENT IS NOT THEFT
BY LAW, COPYING/INFRINGEMENT IS NOT THEFT
BY LAW, COPYING/INFRINGEMENT IS NOT THEFT
BY LAW, COPYING/INFRINGEMENT IS NOT THEFT
BY LAW, COPYING/INFRINGEMENT IS NOT THEFT
BY LAW, COPYING/INFRINGEMENT IS NOT THEFT
BY LAW, COPYING/INFRINGEMENT IS NOT THEFT
BY LAW, COPYING/INFRINGEMENT IS NOT THEFT
BY LAW, COPYING/INFRINGEMENT IS NOT THEFT
BY LAW, COPYING/INFRINGEMENT IS NOT THEFT
BY LAW, COPYING/INFRINGEMENT IS NOT THEFT
BY LAW, COPYING/INFRINGEMENT IS NOT THEFT
BY LAW, COPYING/INFRINGEMENT IS NOT THEFT
BY LAW, COPYING/INFRINGEMENT IS NOT THEFT
BY LAW, COPYING/INFRINGEMENT IS NOT THEFT
BY LAW, COPYING/INFRINGEMENT IS NOT THEFT
BY LAW, COPYING/INFRINGEMENT IS NOT THEFT
BY LAW, COPYING/INFRINGEMENT IS NOT THEFT
BY LAW, COPYING/INFRINGEMENT IS NOT THEFT
BY LAW, COPYING/INFRINGEMENT IS NOT THEFT
BY LAW, COPYING/INFRINGEMENT IS NOT THEFT
BY LAW, COPYING/INFRINGEMENT IS NOT THEFT
BY LAW, COPYING/INFRINGEMENT IS NOT THEFT
BY LAW, COPYING/INFRINGEMENT IS NOT THEFT
BY LAW, COPYING/INFRINGEMENT IS NOT THEFT
BY LAW, COPYING/INFRINGEMENT IS NOT THEFT
BY LAW, COPYING/INFRINGEMENT IS NOT THEFT
BY LAW, COPYING/INFRINGEMENT IS NOT THEFT
BY LAW, COPYING/INFRINGEMENT IS NOT THEFT
BY LAW, COPYING/INFRINGEMENT IS NOT THEFT
BY LAW, COPYING/INFRINGEMENT IS NOT THEFT
BY LAW, COPYING/INFRINGEMENT IS NOT THEFT
BY LAW, COPYING/INFRINGEMENT IS NOT THEFT
BY LAW, COPYING/INFRINGEMENT IS NOT THEFT
BY LAW, COPYING/INFRINGEMENT IS NOT THEFT
BY LAW, COPYING/INFRINGEMENT IS NOT THEFT
BY LAW, COPYING/INFRINGEMENT IS NOT THEFT
BY LAW, COPYING/INFRINGEMENT IS NOT THEFT
BY LAW, COPYING/INFRINGEMENT IS NOT THEFT
BY LAW, COPYING/INFRINGEMENT IS NOT THEFT
BY LAW, COPYING/INFRINGEMENT IS NOT THEFT
BY LAW, COPYING/INFRINGEMENT IS NOT THEFT
BY LAW, COPYING/INFRINGEMENT IS NOT THEFT
BY LAW, COPYING/INFRINGEMENT IS NOT THEFT
BY LAW, COPYING/INFRINGEMENT IS NOT THEFT
BY LAW, COPYING/INFRINGEMENT IS NOT THEFT
BY LAW, COPYING/INFRINGEMENT IS NOT THEFT
BY LAW, COPYING/INFRINGEMENT IS NOT THEFT
BY LAW, COPYING/INFRINGEMENT IS NOT THEFT
BY LAW, COPYING/INFRINGEMENT IS NOT THEFT
BY LAW, COPYING/INFRINGEMENT IS NOT THEFT
BY LAW, COPYING/INFRINGEMENT IS NOT THEFT
BY LAW, COPYING/INFRINGEMENT IS NOT THEFT
BY LAW, COPYING/INFRINGEMENT IS NOT THEFT
BY LAW, COPYING/INFRINGEMENT IS NOT THEFT
BY LAW, COPYING/INFRINGEMENT IS NOT THEFT
BY LAW, COPYING/INFRINGEMENT IS NOT THEFT
BY LAW, COPYING/INFRINGEMENT IS NOT THEFT
BY LAW, COPYING/INFRINGEMENT IS NOT THEFT
BY LAW, COPYING/INFRINGEMENT IS NOT THEFT
BY LAW, COPYING/INFRINGEMENT IS NOT THEFT
BY LAW, COPYING/INFRINGEMENT IS NOT THEFT
BY LAW, COPYING/INFRINGEMENT IS NOT THEFT
BY LAW, COPYING/INFRINGEMENT IS NOT THEFT
BY LAW, COPYING/INFRINGEMENT IS NOT THEFT
BY LAW, COPYING/INFRINGEMENT IS NOT THEFT
BY LAW, COPYING/INFRINGEMENT IS NOT THEFT
BY LAW, COPYING/INFRINGEMENT IS NOT THEFT
BY LAW, COPYING/INFRINGEMENT IS NOT THEFT
BY LAW, COPYING/INFRINGEMENT IS NOT THEFT
BY LAW, COPYING/INFRINGEMENT IS NOT THEFT
BY LAW, COPYING/INFRINGEMENT IS NOT THEFT
BY LAW, COPYING/INFRINGEMENT IS NOT THEFT
BY LAW, COPYING/INFRINGEMENT IS NOT THEFT
BY LAW, COPYING/INFRINGEMENT IS NOT THEFT
BY LAW, COPYING/INFRINGEMENT IS NOT THEFT
BY LAW, COPYING/INFRINGEMENT IS NOT THEFT
BY LAW, COPYING/INFRINGEMENT IS NOT THEFT
BY LAW, COPYING/INFRINGEMENT IS NOT THEFT
BY LAW, COPYING/INFRINGEMENT IS NOT THEFT
BY LAW, COPYING/INFRINGEMENT IS NOT THEFT
BY LAW, COPYING/INFRINGEMENT IS NOT THEFT
BY LAW, COPYING/INFRINGEMENT IS NOT THEFT
BY LAW, COPYING/INFRINGEMENT IS NOT THEFT
BY LAW, COPYING/INFRINGEMENT IS NOT THEFT
BY LAW, COPYING/INFRINGEMENT IS NOT THEFT
BY LAW, COPYING/INFRINGEMENT IS NOT THEFT
BY LAW, COPYING/INFRINGEMENT IS NOT THEFT
BY LAW, COPYING/INFRINGEMENT IS NOT THEFT
BY LAW, COPYING/INFRINGEMENT IS NOT THEFT
BY LAW, COPYING/INFRINGEMENT IS NOT THEFT
BY LAW, COPYING/INFRINGEMENT IS NOT THEFT
BY LAW, COPYING/INFRINGEMENT IS NOT THEFT
BY LAW, COPYING/INFRINGEMENT IS NOT THEFT
BY LAW, COPYING/INFRINGEMENT IS NOT THEFT
BY LAW, COPYING/INFRINGEMENT IS NOT THEFT
BY LAW, COPYING/INFRINGEMENT IS NOT THEFT
BY LAW, COPYING/INFRINGEMENT IS NOT THEFT
BY LAW, COPYING/INFRINGEMENT IS NOT THEFT
BY LAW, COPYING/INFRINGEMENT IS NOT THEFT
BY LAW, COPYING/INFRINGEMENT IS NOT THEFT
BY LAW, COPYING/INFRINGEMENT IS NOT THEFT
BY LAW, COPYING/INFRINGEMENT IS NOT THEFT
BY LAW, COPYING/INFRINGEMENT IS NOT THEFT
BY LAW, COPYING/INFRINGEMENT IS NOT THEFT
BY LAW, COPYING/INFRINGEMENT IS NOT THEFT
BY LAW, COPYING/INFRINGEMENT IS NOT THEFT
BY LAW, COPYING/INFRINGEMENT IS NOT THEFT
BY LAW, COPYING/INFRINGEMENT IS NOT THEFT
BY LAW, COPYING/INFRINGEMENT IS NOT THEFT
BY LAW, COPYING/INFRINGEMENT IS NOT THEFT
BY LAW, COPYING/INFRINGEMENT IS NOT THEFT
BY LAW, COPYING/INFRINGEMENT IS NOT THEFT
BY LAW, COPYING/INFRINGEMENT IS NOT THEFT
BY LAW, COPYING/INFRINGEMENT IS NOT THEFT
BY LAW, COPYING/INFRINGEMENT IS NOT THEFT
BY LAW, COPYING/INFRINGEMENT IS NOT THEFT
BY LAW, COPYING/INFRINGEMENT IS NOT THEFT
BY LAW, COPYING/INFRINGEMENT IS NOT THEFT
BY LAW, COPYING/INFRINGEMENT IS NOT THEFT
BY LAW, COPYING/INFRINGEMENT IS NOT THEFT
BY LAW, COPYING/INFRINGEMENT IS NOT THEFT
BY LAW, COPYING/INFRINGEMENT IS NOT THEFT
BY LAW, COPYING/INFRINGEMENT IS NOT THEFT
BY LAW, COPYING/INFRINGEMENT IS NOT THEFT
BY LAW, COPYING/INFRINGEMENT IS NOT THEFT
BY LAW, COPYING/INFRINGEMENT IS NOT THEFT
BY LAW, COPYING/INFRINGEMENT IS NOT THEFT
BY LAW, COPYING/INFRINGEMENT IS NOT THEFT
BY LAW, COPYING/INFRINGEMENT IS NOT THEFT
BY LAW, COPYING/INFRINGEMENT IS NOT THEFT
BY LAW, COPYING/INFRINGEMENT IS NOT THEFT
BY LAW, COPYING/INFRINGEMENT IS NOT THEFT
BY LAW, COPYING/INFRINGEMENT IS NOT THEFT
BY LAW, COPYING/INFRINGEMENT IS NOT THEFT
BY LAW, COPYING/INFRINGEMENT IS NOT THEFT
BY LAW, COPYING/INFRINGEMENT IS NOT THEFT
BY LAW, COPYING/INFRINGEMENT IS NOT THEFT
BY LAW, COPYING/INFRINGEMENT IS NOT THEFT
BY LAW, COPYING/INFRINGEMENT IS NOT THEFT
BY LAW, COPYING/INFRINGEMENT IS NOT THEFT
BY LAW, COPYING/INFRINGEMENT IS NOT THEFT
BY LAW, COPYING/INFRINGEMENT IS NOT THEFT
BY LAW, COPYING/INFRINGEMENT IS NOT THEFT
BY LAW, COPYING/INFRINGEMENT IS NOT THEFT
BY LAW, COPYING/INFRINGEMENT IS NOT THEFT
BY LAW, COPYING/INFRINGEMENT IS NOT THEFT
BY LAW, COPYING/INFRINGEMENT IS NOT THEFT
BY LAW, COPYING/INFRINGEMENT IS NOT THEFT
BY LAW, COPYING/INFRINGEMENT IS NOT THEFT
BY LAW, COPYING/INFRINGEMENT IS NOT THEFT
BY LAW, COPYING/INFRINGEMENT IS NOT THEFT
BY LAW, COPYING/INFRINGEMENT IS NOT THEFT
BY LAW, COPYING/INFRINGEMENT IS NOT THEFT
BY LAW, COPYING/INFRINGEMENT IS NOT THEFT
BY LAW, COPYING/INFRINGEMENT IS NOT THEFT
BY LAW, COPYING/INFRINGEMENT IS NOT THEFT
BY LAW, COPYING/INFRINGEMENT IS NOT THEFT
BY LAW, COPYING/INFRINGEMENT IS NOT THEFT
BY LAW, COPYING/INFRINGEMENT IS NOT THEFT
BY LAW, COPYING/INFRINGEMENT IS NOT THEFT
BY LAW, COPYING/INFRINGEMENT IS NOT THEFT
BY LAW, COPYING/INFRINGEMENT IS NOT THEFT
BY LAW, COPYING/INFRINGEMENT IS NOT THEFT
BY LAW, COPYING/INFRINGEMENT IS NOT THEFT
BY LAW, COPYING/INFRINGEMENT IS NOT THEFT
BY LAW, COPYING/INFRINGEMENT IS NOT THEFT
BY LAW, COPYING/INFRINGEMENT IS NOT THEFT
BY LAW, COPYING/INFRINGEMENT IS NOT THEFT
BY LAW, COPYING/INFRINGEMENT IS NOT THEFT
BY LAW, COPYING/INFRINGEMENT IS NOT THEFT
BY LAW, COPYING/INFRINGEMENT IS NOT THEFT
BY LAW, COPYING/INFRINGEMENT IS NOT THEFT
BY LAW, COPYING/INFRINGEMENT IS NOT THEFT
BY LAW, COPYING/INFRINGEMENT IS NOT THEFT
BY LAW, COPYING/INFRINGEMENT IS NOT THEFT
BY LAW, COPYING/INFRINGEMENT IS NOT THEFT
BY LAW, COPYING/INFRINGEMENT IS NOT THEFT
BY LAW, COPYING/INFRINGEMENT IS NOT THEFT
BY LAW, COPYING/INFRINGEMENT IS NOT THEFT
BY LAW, COPYING/INFRINGEMENT IS NOT THEFT
BY LAW, COPYING/INFRINGEMENT IS NOT THEFT
BY LAW, COPYING/INFRINGEMENT IS NOT THEFT
BY LAW, COPYING/INFRINGEMENT IS NOT THEFT
BY LAW, COPYING/INFRINGEMENT IS NOT THEFT
BY LAW, COPYING/INFRINGEMENT IS NOT THEFT
BY LAW, COPYING/INFRINGEMENT IS NOT THEFT
BY LAW, COPYING/INFRINGEMENT IS NOT THEFT
BY LAW, COPYING/INFRINGEMENT IS NOT THEFT
BY LAW, COPYING/INFRINGEMENT IS NOT THEFT

Is that obvious enough for all the shills out there?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 13 Oct 2009 @ 3:28pm
  
  Re:
  I own the copyright on repeated text for emphasis. Pay up please.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Dmitriy Plaks (profile), 14 Oct 2009 @ 9:30am
    
    Re: Re:
    wouldnt that fall under patents instead of copyright?
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
wvhillbilly (profile), 13 Oct 2009 @ 1:08pm

Profiting from piracy by extortion
Putting stuff on filesharing networks, then sending anybody who downloads anything letters demanding money?

I'd call it entrapment.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 13 Oct 2009 @ 1:38pm

Hmmm, I thought downloading stuff that was freely available wasn't what was getting people in trouble. I thought it was the "making available", ie. distribution of material that was the problem. With that in mind, if a company has authorization to distribute it and places it on a p2p network, then people are free to download it without having committed any kind of infringement or crime.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
DocMenach (profile), 13 Oct 2009 @ 1:47pm

The problem with "you just know" argument
Right now while searching for torrents I found four songs by Nine Inch Nails: "Pinion", "Suck", "Discipline", and "Sin".

Nic: Since you "just know" please tell me which are authorized and which are not.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
DocMenach (profile), 13 Oct 2009 @ 2:28pm

That's not an answer
You didn't answer my question. Some of those Nine Inch Nails tracks are authorized legitimate downloads, some are not. I must assume by your answer that you don't "just know" which are which.

What about this file: "Sicko, full length movie"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
DocMenach (profile), 13 Oct 2009 @ 2:37pm

What about...
So a couple of weeks ago I was on an EMI (Music Label) website and I found a couple of free files filled with tracks from numerous artists. Should I assume that since these are being distributed from a website owned by a music label that they are authorized legitimate downloads?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Dark Helmet (profile), 13 Oct 2009 @ 2:38pm

All I know
is that, thanks to you folks, I am going to be making baked potatoes for dinner tonight.

Thanks for the recommendation!

Nic, I don't have time to get to the store, so toss a few of those bad boys over my way, yo...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 13 Oct 2009 @ 3:26pm
  
  Re: All I know
  "is that, thanks to you folks, I am going to be making baked potatoes for dinner tonight."
  
  But it was Nic's idea, so if you do it you're infringing upon his idea and are subject to a lawsuit.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 13 Oct 2009 @ 2:48pm

If the music company had any other reason for the files to be on a server they would have some kind of protection on them. If they had protection and then you still figured out how to take them, then it's illegal.

if you use your camera to take a picture of art, hanging in a puble place, "that's not for sale", then it is a legal reproduction.

and it's more like I take my bag of potatoes to the park and leave them , for all to see. and then getting mad when I check on them later and they have been eaten.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
DocMenach (profile), 13 Oct 2009 @ 3:37pm

Nic, you did a poor job
Nic: If you are going to play devil's advocate you need to do a better job. You can't just set up weak strawmen, you actually have to try to come up with real, logical arguments that actually take some time and thought.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 13 Oct 2009 @ 4:19pm
  
  Re: Nic, you did a poor job
  but that would require work and time and intellectual property maximists are too lazy to do such a thing. They just want to make money off of the hard work of others.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - DocMenach (profile), 13 Oct 2009 @ 4:52pm
    
    Re: Re: Nic, you did a poor job
    Well now you are completely discounting the other side. In my experience having "the other side is lazy and greedy" as your premise is not a very good way to have a meaningful discussion with them. I'm sure there are IP maximalists who are neither lazy nor just trying to make money off of others.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 13 Oct 2009 @ 5:52pm
      
      Re: Re: Re: Nic, you did a poor job
      "In my experience having "the other side is lazy and greedy" as your premise is not a very good way to have a meaningful discussion with them."
      
      We've been trying to have a meaningful discussion with them but they have failed at every turn.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 13 Oct 2009 @ 5:57pm
      
      Re: Re: Re: Nic, you did a poor job
      "I'm sure there are IP maximalists who are neither lazy nor just trying to make money off of others."
      
      Well they are free to come here and discuss the issue meaningfully. So far all I have seen is poor logic driven by people who seem to be too lazy to come up with a decent argument yet alone make any sense.
      
      Or perhaps they're not so lazy and it's just that their position is so poor that they are unable to defend their pro intellectual property positions no matter how much effort they put into it. This ought to bring into question the merits of their pro intellectual property position.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - DocMenach (profile), 13 Oct 2009 @ 6:43pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Nic, you did a poor job
        Well I think part of it is that they feel that they have so much invested in it that they have to defend it tooth and nail. They also seem to have this adversarial attitude that anyone who doesn't totally agree with them is the enemy. This blinds them: They become so focused on on fighting the sharing of creative content that they don't look to see how they can embrace it to make even more money than they did before.
        
        Fortunately, some people do have the right attitude and are using the available and developing technology to spread their artistic works to more people than ever(and making good money doing it). The dinosaurs will eventually die out, though it may take a while.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Irate Pirate, 14 Oct 2009 @ 2:36am

What a coincidence! Someone left a sack of potatoes on a public road just the other day. I came across them totally by accident and decided to make myself a copy. I then allowed others to make a copy of my copy. Now the owner of the original sack is suing me because I didn't have permission to make a copy of his potatoes nor distribute them. Man do I ever wish I hadn't gone out driving that day! I'll let you all know how the trial goes. I sure hope the judge isn't also a potato owner (which I think he is), otherwise things won't turn out well for me at all!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]