Extortion Is Profitable Too, Doesn't Mean That It's A Fair Way To Profit Off Piracy
from the just-saying... dept
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![Hide This Hide this](https://ii.techdirt.com/s/t/i/topclose.png)
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
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Uh, clarification?
20% to the ARTIST, or to the RIGHTS HOLDER (e.g. Music Label)?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Uh, clarification?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Uh, clarification?
Yes, that's right. Should have been clearer... let me update...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
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 ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Yeah... unruly smacking going on; all due to putting out free pie!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
yeah yeah, but...
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 ]
Re: yeah yeah, but...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: yeah yeah, but...
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 ]
Re: Re: Re: yeah yeah, but...
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 ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: yeah yeah, but...
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 ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: yeah yeah, but...
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 ]
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.
But, I think we all get the gist of the story... :)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: yeah yeah, but...
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 ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: yeah yeah, but...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: yeah yeah, but...
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 ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: yeah yeah, but...
http://www.telerik.com/purchase/faqs/telerik-premium-collection-for-dotnet.aspx
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: yeah yeah, but...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: yeah yeah, but...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: yeah yeah, but...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: yeah yeah, but...
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 ]
Re: yeah yeah, but...
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 ]
Re: Re: yeah yeah, but...
I mean whether not weather. Dang, I always do that.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: yeah yeah, but...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: yeah yeah, but...
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 ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: yeah yeah, but...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: yeah yeah, but...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: yeah yeah, but...
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 ]
Re: Re: Re: yeah yeah, but...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: yeah yeah, but...
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 ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: yeah yeah, but...
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 ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: yeah yeah, but...
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 ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: yeah yeah, but...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: yeah yeah, but...
"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 ]
Re: Re: yeah yeah, but...
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 ]
Re: Re: Re: yeah yeah, but...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: yeah yeah, but...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: yeah yeah, but...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: yeah yeah, but...
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 ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: yeah yeah, but...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: yeah yeah, but...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: yeah yeah, but...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: yeah yeah, but...
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 ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: yeah yeah, but...
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 ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: yeah yeah, but...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: yeah yeah, but...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: yeah yeah, but...
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 ]
Re: Re: Re: yeah yeah, but...
(Remember, think before you post.)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: yeah yeah, but...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: yeah yeah, but...
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 ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: yeah yeah, but...
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 ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: yeah yeah, but...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: yeah yeah, but...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: yeah yeah, but...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: yeah yeah, but...
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 ]
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, 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 ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: yeah yeah, but...
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 ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: yeah yeah, but...
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 ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: yeah yeah, but...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: yeah yeah, but...
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 ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: yeah yeah, but...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: yeah yeah, but...
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 ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: yeah yeah, but...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: yeah yeah, but...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: yeah yeah, but...
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 ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: yeah yeah, but...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: yeah yeah, but...
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 ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: yeah yeah, but...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: yeah yeah, but...
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 ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: yeah yeah, but...
- 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 ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: yeah yeah, but...
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 ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: yeah yeah, but...
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 ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: yeah yeah, but...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: yeah yeah, but...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: yeah yeah, but...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: yeah yeah, but...
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 ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: yeah yeah, but...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: yeah yeah, but...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: yeah yeah, but...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: yeah yeah, but...
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 ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: yeah yeah, but...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: yeah yeah, but...
It's not just a copy, it's a civil matter.
Not a crime.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: yeah yeah, but...
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 ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: yeah yeah, but...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: yeah yeah, but...
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 ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: yeah yeah, but...
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 ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: yeah yeah, but...
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 ]
Re: Re: Re: yeah yeah, 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 ]
Re: Re: Re: yeah yeah, but...
It doesn't work. Isn't that a form of entrapment?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: yeah yeah, but...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: yeah yeah, but...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: yeah yeah, but...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: yeah yeah, but...
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 ]
Re: Re: Re: yeah yeah, but...
/sarcasm
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: yeah yeah, but...
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 ]
Re: yeah yeah, but...
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 ]
Re: yeah yeah, but...
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 ]
Re: Re: yeah yeah, but...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: yeah yeah, but...
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 ]
Re: Re: yeah yeah, but...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: yeah yeah, but...
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 ]
Re: Re: Re: yeah yeah, but...
Oh, well, I guess our cover is blown.
/. sarcasm -R -o
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: yeah yeah, but...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: yeah yeah, but...
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 ]
Re: Re: yeah yeah, but...
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 ]
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 ]
Re:
What they're doing is fraudulent and extortionist. Shouldn't there be a penalty for that too?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
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 ]
Re:
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 ]
Re: Re:
Have there been any cases of these companies suing people who only downloaded?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
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 ]
"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?
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 ]
Re: "Making available" no longer "theft"?
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 ]
Re: Re: "Making available" no longer "theft"?
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 ]
Re: Re: "Making available" no longer "theft"?
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 ]
Re: Re: Re: "Making available" no longer "theft"?
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 ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: "Making available" no longer "theft"?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: "Making available" no longer "theft"?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: "Making available" no longer "theft"?
Different scenario.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: "Making available" no longer "theft"?
Aaaannnnnyyyyyy waaayyyyyyy...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: "Making available" no longer "theft"?
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 ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: "Making available" no longer "theft"?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: "Making available" no longer "theft"?
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 ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: "Making available" no longer "theft"?
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 ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: "Making available" no longer "theft"?
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 ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: "Making available" no longer "theft"?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: "Making available" no longer "theft"?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: "Making available" no longer "theft"?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: "Making available" no longer "theft"?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: "Making available" no longer "theft"?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: "Making available" no longer "theft"?
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 ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: "Making available" no longer "theft"?
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 ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: "Making available" no longer "theft"?
(streeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeetch)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: "Making available" no longer "theft"?
(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 ]
Re: Re: Re: "Making available" no longer "theft"?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: "Making available" no longer "theft"?
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 ]
Re: Re: "Making available" no longer "theft"?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: "Making available" no longer "theft"?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: "Making available" no longer "theft"?
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 ]
ok, imagine....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Letters to all!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Letters to all!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
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 ]
Re:
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 ]
Downloaders
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Downloaders
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
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 ]
Re:
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 ]
my 2 cents
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 ]
BY LAW, COPYING/INFRINGEMENT IS NOT THEFT
BY LAW, COPYING/INFRINGEMENT IS NOT THEFT
BY LAW, COPYING/INFRINGEMENT IS NOT THEFT
BY LAW, COPYING/INFRINGEMENT IS NOT THEFT
BY LAW, COPYING/INFRINGEMENT IS NOT THEFT
BY LAW, COPYING/INFRINGEMENT IS NOT THEFT
BY LAW, COPYING/INFRINGEMENT IS NOT THEFT
BY LAW, COPYING/INFRINGEMENT IS NOT THEFT
BY LAW, COPYING/INFRINGEMENT IS NOT THEFT
BY LAW, COPYING/INFRINGEMENT IS NOT THEFT
BY LAW, COPYING/INFRINGEMENT IS NOT THEFT
BY LAW, COPYING/INFRINGEMENT IS NOT THEFT
BY LAW, COPYING/INFRINGEMENT IS NOT THEFT
BY LAW, COPYING/INFRINGEMENT IS NOT THEFT
BY LAW, COPYING/INFRINGEMENT IS NOT THEFT
BY LAW, COPYING/INFRINGEMENT IS NOT THEFT
BY LAW, COPYING/INFRINGEMENT IS NOT THEFT
BY LAW, COPYING/INFRINGEMENT IS NOT THEFT
BY LAW, COPYING/INFRINGEMENT IS NOT THEFT
BY LAW, COPYING/INFRINGEMENT IS NOT THEFT
BY LAW, COPYING/INFRINGEMENT IS NOT THEFT
BY LAW, COPYING/INFRINGEMENT IS NOT THEFT
BY LAW, COPYING/INFRINGEMENT IS NOT THEFT
BY LAW, COPYING/INFRINGEMENT IS NOT THEFT
BY LAW, COPYING/INFRINGEMENT IS NOT THEFT
BY LAW, COPYING/INFRINGEMENT IS NOT THEFT
BY LAW, COPYING/INFRINGEMENT IS NOT THEFT
BY LAW, COPYING/INFRINGEMENT IS NOT THEFT
BY LAW, COPYING/INFRINGEMENT IS NOT THEFT
BY LAW, COPYING/INFRINGEMENT IS NOT THEFT
BY LAW, COPYING/INFRINGEMENT IS NOT THEFT
BY LAW, COPYING/INFRINGEMENT IS NOT THEFT
BY LAW, COPYING/INFRINGEMENT IS NOT THEFT
BY LAW, COPYING/INFRINGEMENT IS NOT THEFT
BY LAW, COPYING/INFRINGEMENT IS NOT THEFT
BY LAW, COPYING/INFRINGEMENT IS NOT THEFT
BY LAW, COPYING/INFRINGEMENT IS NOT THEFT
BY LAW, COPYING/INFRINGEMENT IS NOT THEFT
BY LAW, COPYING/INFRINGEMENT IS NOT THEFT
BY LAW, COPYING/INFRINGEMENT IS NOT THEFT
BY LAW, COPYING/INFRINGEMENT IS NOT THEFT
BY LAW, COPYING/INFRINGEMENT IS NOT THEFT
BY LAW, COPYING/INFRINGEMENT IS NOT THEFT
BY LAW, COPYING/INFRINGEMENT IS NOT THEFT
BY LAW, COPYING/INFRINGEMENT IS NOT THEFT
BY LAW, COPYING/INFRINGEMENT IS NOT THEFT
BY LAW, COPYING/INFRINGEMENT IS NOT THEFT
BY LAW, COPYING/INFRINGEMENT IS NOT THEFT
BY LAW, COPYING/INFRINGEMENT IS NOT THEFT
BY LAW, COPYING/INFRINGEMENT IS NOT THEFT
BY LAW, COPYING/INFRINGEMENT IS NOT THEFT
BY LAW, COPYING/INFRINGEMENT IS NOT THEFT
BY LAW, COPYING/INFRINGEMENT IS NOT THEFT
BY LAW, COPYING/INFRINGEMENT IS NOT THEFT
BY LAW, COPYING/INFRINGEMENT IS NOT THEFT
BY LAW, COPYING/INFRINGEMENT IS NOT THEFT
BY LAW, COPYING/INFRINGEMENT IS NOT THEFT
BY LAW, COPYING/INFRINGEMENT IS NOT THEFT
BY LAW, COPYING/INFRINGEMENT IS NOT THEFT
BY LAW, COPYING/INFRINGEMENT IS NOT THEFT
BY LAW, COPYING/INFRINGEMENT IS NOT THEFT
BY LAW, COPYING/INFRINGEMENT IS NOT THEFT
BY LAW, COPYING/INFRINGEMENT IS NOT THEFT
BY LAW, COPYING/INFRINGEMENT IS NOT THEFT
BY LAW, COPYING/INFRINGEMENT IS NOT THEFT
BY LAW, COPYING/INFRINGEMENT IS NOT THEFT
BY LAW, COPYING/INFRINGEMENT IS NOT THEFT
BY LAW, COPYING/INFRINGEMENT IS NOT THEFT
BY LAW, COPYING/INFRINGEMENT IS NOT THEFT
BY LAW, COPYING/INFRINGEMENT IS NOT THEFT
BY LAW, COPYING/INFRINGEMENT IS NOT THEFT
BY LAW, COPYING/INFRINGEMENT IS NOT THEFT
BY LAW, COPYING/INFRINGEMENT IS NOT THEFT
BY LAW, COPYING/INFRINGEMENT IS NOT THEFT
BY LAW, COPYING/INFRINGEMENT IS NOT THEFT
BY LAW, COPYING/INFRINGEMENT IS NOT THEFT
BY LAW, COPYING/INFRINGEMENT IS NOT THEFT
BY LAW, COPYING/INFRINGEMENT IS NOT THEFT
BY LAW, COPYING/INFRINGEMENT IS NOT THEFT
BY LAW, COPYING/INFRINGEMENT IS NOT THEFT
BY LAW, COPYING/INFRINGEMENT IS NOT THEFT
BY LAW, COPYING/INFRINGEMENT IS NOT THEFT
BY LAW, COPYING/INFRINGEMENT IS NOT THEFT
BY LAW, COPYING/INFRINGEMENT IS NOT THEFT
BY LAW, COPYING/INFRINGEMENT IS NOT THEFT
BY LAW, COPYING/INFRINGEMENT IS NOT THEFT
BY LAW, COPYING/INFRINGEMENT IS NOT THEFT
BY LAW, COPYING/INFRINGEMENT IS NOT THEFT
BY LAW, COPYING/INFRINGEMENT IS NOT THEFT
BY LAW, COPYING/INFRINGEMENT IS NOT THEFT
BY LAW, COPYING/INFRINGEMENT IS NOT THEFT
BY LAW, COPYING/INFRINGEMENT IS NOT THEFT
BY LAW, COPYING/INFRINGEMENT IS NOT THEFT
BY LAW, COPYING/INFRINGEMENT IS NOT THEFT
BY LAW, COPYING/INFRINGEMENT IS NOT THEFT
BY LAW, COPYING/INFRINGEMENT IS NOT THEFT
BY LAW, COPYING/INFRINGEMENT IS NOT THEFT
BY LAW, COPYING/INFRINGEMENT IS NOT THEFT
BY LAW, COPYING/INFRINGEMENT IS NOT THEFT
BY LAW, COPYING/INFRINGEMENT IS NOT THEFT
BY LAW, COPYING/INFRINGEMENT IS NOT THEFT
BY LAW, COPYING/INFRINGEMENT IS NOT THEFT
BY LAW, COPYING/INFRINGEMENT IS NOT THEFT
BY LAW, COPYING/INFRINGEMENT IS NOT THEFT
BY LAW, COPYING/INFRINGEMENT IS NOT THEFT
BY LAW, COPYING/INFRINGEMENT IS NOT THEFT
BY LAW, COPYING/INFRINGEMENT IS NOT THEFT
BY LAW, COPYING/INFRINGEMENT IS NOT THEFT
BY LAW, COPYING/INFRINGEMENT IS NOT THEFT
BY LAW, COPYING/INFRINGEMENT IS NOT THEFT
BY LAW, COPYING/INFRINGEMENT IS NOT THEFT
BY LAW, COPYING/INFRINGEMENT IS NOT THEFT
BY LAW, COPYING/INFRINGEMENT IS NOT THEFT
BY LAW, COPYING/INFRINGEMENT IS NOT THEFT
BY LAW, COPYING/INFRINGEMENT IS NOT THEFT
BY LAW, COPYING/INFRINGEMENT IS NOT THEFT
BY LAW, COPYING/INFRINGEMENT IS NOT THEFT
BY LAW, COPYING/INFRINGEMENT IS NOT THEFT
BY LAW, COPYING/INFRINGEMENT IS NOT THEFT
BY LAW, COPYING/INFRINGEMENT IS NOT THEFT
BY LAW, COPYING/INFRINGEMENT IS NOT THEFT
BY LAW, COPYING/INFRINGEMENT IS NOT THEFT
BY LAW, COPYING/INFRINGEMENT IS NOT THEFT
BY LAW, COPYING/INFRINGEMENT IS NOT THEFT
BY LAW, COPYING/INFRINGEMENT IS NOT THEFT
BY LAW, COPYING/INFRINGEMENT IS NOT THEFT
BY LAW, COPYING/INFRINGEMENT IS NOT THEFT
BY LAW, COPYING/INFRINGEMENT IS NOT THEFT
BY LAW, COPYING/INFRINGEMENT IS NOT THEFT
BY LAW, COPYING/INFRINGEMENT IS NOT THEFT
BY LAW, COPYING/INFRINGEMENT IS NOT THEFT
BY LAW, COPYING/INFRINGEMENT IS NOT THEFT
BY LAW, COPYING/INFRINGEMENT IS NOT THEFT
BY LAW, COPYING/INFRINGEMENT IS NOT THEFT
BY LAW, COPYING/INFRINGEMENT IS NOT THEFT
BY LAW, COPYING/INFRINGEMENT IS NOT THEFT
BY LAW, COPYING/INFRINGEMENT IS NOT THEFT
BY LAW, COPYING/INFRINGEMENT IS NOT THEFT
BY LAW, COPYING/INFRINGEMENT IS NOT THEFT
BY LAW, COPYING/INFRINGEMENT IS NOT THEFT
BY LAW, COPYING/INFRINGEMENT IS NOT THEFT
BY LAW, COPYING/INFRINGEMENT IS NOT THEFT
BY LAW, COPYING/INFRINGEMENT IS NOT THEFT
BY LAW, COPYING/INFRINGEMENT IS NOT THEFT
BY LAW, COPYING/INFRINGEMENT IS NOT THEFT
BY LAW, COPYING/INFRINGEMENT IS NOT THEFT
BY LAW, COPYING/INFRINGEMENT IS NOT THEFT
BY LAW, COPYING/INFRINGEMENT IS NOT THEFT
BY LAW, COPYING/INFRINGEMENT IS NOT THEFT
BY LAW, COPYING/INFRINGEMENT IS NOT THEFT
BY LAW, COPYING/INFRINGEMENT IS NOT THEFT
BY LAW, COPYING/INFRINGEMENT IS NOT THEFT
BY LAW, COPYING/INFRINGEMENT IS NOT THEFT
BY LAW, COPYING/INFRINGEMENT IS NOT THEFT
BY LAW, COPYING/INFRINGEMENT IS NOT THEFT
BY LAW, COPYING/INFRINGEMENT IS NOT THEFT
BY LAW, COPYING/INFRINGEMENT IS NOT THEFT
BY LAW, COPYING/INFRINGEMENT IS NOT THEFT
BY LAW, COPYING/INFRINGEMENT IS NOT THEFT
BY LAW, COPYING/INFRINGEMENT IS NOT THEFT
BY LAW, COPYING/INFRINGEMENT IS NOT THEFT
BY LAW, COPYING/INFRINGEMENT IS NOT THEFT
BY LAW, COPYING/INFRINGEMENT IS NOT THEFT
BY LAW, COPYING/INFRINGEMENT IS NOT THEFT
BY LAW, COPYING/INFRINGEMENT IS NOT THEFT
BY LAW, COPYING/INFRINGEMENT IS NOT THEFT
BY LAW, COPYING/INFRINGEMENT IS NOT THEFT
BY LAW, COPYING/INFRINGEMENT IS NOT THEFT
BY LAW, COPYING/INFRINGEMENT IS NOT THEFT
BY LAW, COPYING/INFRINGEMENT IS NOT THEFT
BY LAW, COPYING/INFRINGEMENT IS NOT THEFT
BY LAW, COPYING/INFRINGEMENT IS NOT THEFT
BY LAW, COPYING/INFRINGEMENT IS NOT THEFT
BY LAW, COPYING/INFRINGEMENT IS NOT THEFT
BY LAW, COPYING/INFRINGEMENT IS NOT THEFT
BY LAW, COPYING/INFRINGEMENT IS NOT THEFT
BY LAW, COPYING/INFRINGEMENT IS NOT THEFT
BY LAW, COPYING/INFRINGEMENT IS NOT THEFT
BY LAW, COPYING/INFRINGEMENT IS NOT THEFT
BY LAW, COPYING/INFRINGEMENT IS NOT THEFT
BY LAW, COPYING/INFRINGEMENT IS NOT THEFT
BY LAW, COPYING/INFRINGEMENT IS NOT THEFT
BY LAW, COPYING/INFRINGEMENT IS NOT THEFT
BY LAW, COPYING/INFRINGEMENT IS NOT THEFT
BY LAW, COPYING/INFRINGEMENT IS NOT THEFT
BY LAW, COPYING/INFRINGEMENT IS NOT THEFT
BY LAW, COPYING/INFRINGEMENT IS NOT THEFT
BY LAW, COPYING/INFRINGEMENT IS NOT THEFT
BY LAW, COPYING/INFRINGEMENT IS NOT THEFT
BY LAW, COPYING/INFRINGEMENT IS NOT THEFT
BY LAW, COPYING/INFRINGEMENT IS NOT THEFT
BY LAW, COPYING/INFRINGEMENT IS NOT THEFT
BY LAW, COPYING/INFRINGEMENT IS NOT THEFT
BY LAW, COPYING/INFRINGEMENT IS NOT THEFT
BY LAW, COPYING/INFRINGEMENT IS NOT THEFT
BY LAW, COPYING/INFRINGEMENT IS NOT THEFT
BY LAW, COPYING/INFRINGEMENT IS NOT THEFT
BY LAW, COPYING/INFRINGEMENT IS NOT THEFT
BY LAW, COPYING/INFRINGEMENT IS NOT THEFT
BY LAW, COPYING/INFRINGEMENT IS NOT THEFT
BY LAW, COPYING/INFRINGEMENT IS NOT THEFT
BY LAW, COPYING/INFRINGEMENT IS NOT THEFT
BY LAW, COPYING/INFRINGEMENT IS NOT THEFT
BY LAW, COPYING/INFRINGEMENT IS NOT THEFT
BY LAW, COPYING/INFRINGEMENT IS NOT THEFT
BY LAW, COPYING/INFRINGEMENT IS NOT THEFT
BY LAW, COPYING/INFRINGEMENT IS NOT THEFT
BY LAW, COPYING/INFRINGEMENT IS NOT THEFT
BY LAW, COPYING/INFRINGEMENT IS NOT THEFT
BY LAW, COPYING/INFRINGEMENT IS NOT THEFT
BY LAW, COPYING/INFRINGEMENT IS NOT THEFT
BY LAW, COPYING/INFRINGEMENT IS NOT THEFT
BY LAW, COPYING/INFRINGEMENT IS NOT THEFT
BY LAW, COPYING/INFRINGEMENT IS NOT THEFT
BY LAW, COPYING/INFRINGEMENT IS NOT THEFT
BY LAW, COPYING/INFRINGEMENT IS NOT THEFT
BY LAW, COPYING/INFRINGEMENT IS NOT THEFT
BY LAW, COPYING/INFRINGEMENT IS NOT THEFT
BY LAW, COPYING/INFRINGEMENT IS NOT THEFT
BY LAW, COPYING/INFRINGEMENT IS NOT THEFT
BY LAW, COPYING/INFRINGEMENT IS NOT THEFT
BY LAW, COPYING/INFRINGEMENT IS NOT THEFT
BY LAW, COPYING/INFRINGEMENT IS NOT THEFT
BY LAW, COPYING/INFRINGEMENT IS NOT THEFT
BY LAW, COPYING/INFRINGEMENT IS NOT THEFT
BY LAW, COPYING/INFRINGEMENT IS NOT THEFT
BY LAW, COPYING/INFRINGEMENT IS NOT THEFT
BY LAW, COPYING/INFRINGEMENT IS NOT THEFT
BY LAW, COPYING/INFRINGEMENT IS NOT THEFT
BY LAW, COPYING/INFRINGEMENT IS NOT THEFT
BY LAW, COPYING/INFRINGEMENT IS NOT THEFT
BY LAW, COPYING/INFRINGEMENT IS NOT THEFT
BY LAW, COPYING/INFRINGEMENT IS NOT THEFT
BY LAW, COPYING/INFRINGEMENT IS NOT THEFT
BY LAW, COPYING/INFRINGEMENT IS NOT THEFT
BY LAW, COPYING/INFRINGEMENT IS NOT THEFT
BY LAW, COPYING/INFRINGEMENT IS NOT THEFT
BY LAW, COPYING/INFRINGEMENT IS NOT THEFT
BY LAW, COPYING/INFRINGEMENT IS NOT THEFT
BY LAW, COPYING/INFRINGEMENT IS NOT THEFT
BY LAW, COPYING/INFRINGEMENT IS NOT THEFT
BY LAW, COPYING/INFRINGEMENT IS NOT THEFT
BY LAW, COPYING/INFRINGEMENT IS NOT THEFT
BY LAW, COPYING/INFRINGEMENT IS NOT THEFT
BY LAW, COPYING/INFRINGEMENT IS NOT THEFT
BY LAW, COPYING/INFRINGEMENT IS NOT THEFT
BY LAW, COPYING/INFRINGEMENT IS NOT THEFT
BY LAW, COPYING/INFRINGEMENT IS NOT THEFT
BY LAW, COPYING/INFRINGEMENT IS NOT THEFT
BY LAW, COPYING/INFRINGEMENT IS NOT THEFT
BY LAW, COPYING/INFRINGEMENT IS NOT THEFT
BY LAW, COPYING/INFRINGEMENT IS NOT THEFT
BY LAW, COPYING/INFRINGEMENT IS NOT THEFT
BY LAW, COPYING/INFRINGEMENT IS NOT THEFT
BY LAW, COPYING/INFRINGEMENT IS NOT THEFT
BY LAW, COPYING/INFRINGEMENT IS NOT THEFT
BY LAW, COPYING/INFRINGEMENT IS NOT THEFT
BY LAW, COPYING/INFRINGEMENT IS NOT THEFT
BY LAW, COPYING/INFRINGEMENT IS NOT THEFT
BY LAW, COPYING/INFRINGEMENT IS NOT THEFT
BY LAW, COPYING/INFRINGEMENT IS NOT THEFT
BY LAW, COPYING/INFRINGEMENT IS NOT THEFT
BY LAW, COPYING/INFRINGEMENT IS NOT THEFT
BY LAW, COPYING/INFRINGEMENT IS NOT THEFT
BY LAW, COPYING/INFRINGEMENT IS NOT THEFT
BY LAW, COPYING/INFRINGEMENT 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 ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Profiting from piracy by extortion
I'd call it entrapment.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The problem with "you just know" argument
Nic: Since you "just know" please tell me which are authorized and which are not.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
That's not an answer
What about this file: "Sicko, full length movie"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
What about...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
All I know
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 ]
Re: All I know
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 ]
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 ]
Nic, you did a poor job
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Nic, you did a poor job
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Nic, you did a poor job
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Nic, you did a poor job
We've been trying to have a meaningful discussion with them but they have failed at every turn.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Nic, you did a poor job
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 ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Nic, you did a poor job
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 ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]