There's a lot wrong (misleading?) about what you've written, but two things jump out at me:
stealing: obtaining something to which you have no right, and for which payment would be due absent acquisition by illegal means.
This isn't the definition of stealing. Stealing is the illegal taking of another person's property without that person's freely-given consent. Since at the end of the day, you still have your *original* copy, I didn't take anything from you. Also, you can't *own* a limited monopoly. There is no property, despite the oft coined "intellectual property" So, you still have your copy, which you do own. I never took your property. Hence, no stealing. This is not up for debate. At all. So stop, already.
But that aside, the culture still has access to copyrighted works, so copyright doesn't take that away. It does, however place some narrow limits on how you can use that content/culture.
It's not about having access (not to mention the many books/movies/tv shows/songs that are no longer being produced that I *don't* have access to because of copyrights) it's about having *complete* access. Most notably, the ability to take a work and build upon it. That's like saying you'll give me 1 million dollars, and then saying I can only buy from you-- but hey, you still have a million dollars. Not if I can't do whatever I want with it, I don't.
Also, "some narrow limits" is the biggest load of bullshit I've ever heard. Tell me how I'm *not* limited.
In all, your twisting of words and doublespeak is very disturbing. The rules were clear: Creaters get a **LIMITED** monopoly over who can and can't use their works. The limit keeps getting extended by lobbying from the people who *directly* benefit from it, with complete disreguard to the effect it has on future creators.
One juror was dismissed after admitting that he had friends who used Kazaa. *Of course* they are going to rule in the prosecution's favor if no one on the computer has any background in computers, p2p, or knowledge of file sharing.
Even worse, this is nothing new with jury selection.
To be a true jury of my peers, they would have to be chosen at random and not questioned at all.
this lawsuit and others like it were for the purpose of making a point
..I'm not trying to troll, I promise, but what, exactly, *is* their point? That it's ilegal? Yeah, we all know that already.
I have a great idea! If they don't want or need these huge fines, perhaps they should aim their lobbyists in the direction of copyright laws that allow for such huge fines? Surely, they can get a no-fines-for-non-profit clause thrown in there, and then they can sue all day every day to make this point (that I still don't get) and no one gets to get financially ruined.
Or.. maybe it *is* about the money, and fear, and control, and power.
Re: Re: Re: Why an IP address is private information
What's private is the connection between that info and who it belongs to.
So, using reading comprehension, if the thinks the connection between public data, like an IP address or phone number, and the actual owner of that data is private, then why would you ask him to make the connection?
He *just* said that knowing which number goes with which person is private data.
I was wondering, until the verdict, when you said you sold something for a song, you meant that you sold it very cheaply. Do we now get to completely reverse the meaning of that phrase?
If the students want free speech, tell them to organize in someone's basement, hit the streets to sell advertising, and hire their own printer to print the magazine.
It just occured to me that if I rename my mp3 with a file extention that my music player doesn't recognize, it ceases to be music and becomes semi-random bits of data, useless to my computer.
Now, if I upload it to you, have I violated a copyright? Do they "own" the specific series of 1s and 0s?
I'm just curious how much (or little) control they have over rearranging bits on my hard drive.
I don't understand this in the least. For a bar or diner or whatever, it makes *some* sense, as I'm less likely to go to a bar that plays country music, so the music playing *might* be a deciding factor, and thus, valuable.
Onto horse stables, dentist offices, garages, etc: I don't factor in the music that is playing in any of these places when deciding which one to give my money to, so why would they need to pay? They aren't making a profit due to the music, they are making a profit and happen to have music playing.
It's greed, plain and simple. The fact that you swallow the bogus rules they've designed to make them richer reflect very poorly on you.
That's what keeps nagging at me, too. These jurors sat around in their room and discussed this. They collectively and unanimously agreed that this woman deserved financial ruin for sharing 24 songs. That's two CD's.
I could steal (I mean, physically go and take) **20** CDs and not have to pay that much.
What kind of world do we live in where a group of random citizens feels that it's okay to ruin someone's life because they shared 24 songs for free, with no noticible or proven harm to the rights holders? I weep for my country for many reasons, but this jumps high up on the list.
Also, I'd really like to find a list of the 24 songs, is anyone can point me to it.
Okay, on the face of it, your sarcasm is at the ridiculousness of the judgement. Bravo.
However, since the money actually all goes to the record labels, and not the government, I'm going to pretend that you were subtlely hinting that the record labels control the government to such a degree that they might as well be considered the government.
Not only is it not theft, but she is being tried for shaing music, not downloading it. Giving something away isn't stealing. It was shown that she was buying CDs before and after the time of infringement. The only people we are certain downloaded music is MediaSentry.
Bottom line, it's not stealing any more than it's music traitorism. Or music rape, or music double parking. Just stop.
First, when did they stop suing? I heard that they said they did, but I haven't actually seen any proof of it.
Second, I don't know about you, but I'm equally unable to pay a 1.5 million judgement as I am a 225 million judgement. Either way I file for bankruptcy. I say the try her luck. The worst that can happn is nothing different.
Right, so by *your* "logic" she is being sued not only for her direct infringement (which they have no proof of whatsoever, except for what MediaSentry downloaded itself) but ALSO for the acts of the people after her.. but if they then go to the next person down the chain, they are most certainly going to sue for the same exact amount. So, if person A shares with person B who shares with person C and they sue and take into account A, B and C, then they sue person B for sharing with C and D-- they've sued for person B and C twice.
On the post: RIAA Claims Jammie Thomas Jury Is A Representative Sample Of Views On File Sharing
Re: Re: Re: Re: Huh?
stealing: obtaining something to which you have no right, and for which payment would be due absent acquisition by illegal means.
This isn't the definition of stealing. Stealing is the illegal taking of another person's property without that person's freely-given consent. Since at the end of the day, you still have your *original* copy, I didn't take anything from you. Also, you can't *own* a limited monopoly. There is no property, despite the oft coined "intellectual property" So, you still have your copy, which you do own. I never took your property. Hence, no stealing. This is not up for debate. At all. So stop, already.
But that aside, the culture still has access to copyrighted works, so copyright doesn't take that away. It does, however place some narrow limits on how you can use that content/culture.
It's not about having access (not to mention the many books/movies/tv shows/songs that are no longer being produced that I *don't* have access to because of copyrights) it's about having *complete* access. Most notably, the ability to take a work and build upon it. That's like saying you'll give me 1 million dollars, and then saying I can only buy from you-- but hey, you still have a million dollars. Not if I can't do whatever I want with it, I don't.
Also, "some narrow limits" is the biggest load of bullshit I've ever heard. Tell me how I'm *not* limited.
In all, your twisting of words and doublespeak is very disturbing. The rules were clear: Creaters get a **LIMITED** monopoly over who can and can't use their works. The limit keeps getting extended by lobbying from the people who *directly* benefit from it, with complete disreguard to the effect it has on future creators.
On the post: RIAA Claims Jammie Thomas Jury Is A Representative Sample Of Views On File Sharing
Re:
One juror was dismissed after admitting that he had friends who used Kazaa. *Of course* they are going to rule in the prosecution's favor if no one on the computer has any background in computers, p2p, or knowledge of file sharing.
Even worse, this is nothing new with jury selection.
To be a true jury of my peers, they would have to be chosen at random and not questioned at all.
On the post: Connecticut Town Tells ASCAP, BMI, SESAC To Get Lost Over Royalty Bills
Re:
/sarcasm
On the post: RIAA Claims Jammie Thomas Jury Is A Representative Sample Of Views On File Sharing
Re:
..I'm not trying to troll, I promise, but what, exactly, *is* their point? That it's ilegal? Yeah, we all know that already.
I have a great idea! If they don't want or need these huge fines, perhaps they should aim their lobbyists in the direction of copyright laws that allow for such huge fines? Surely, they can get a no-fines-for-non-profit clause thrown in there, and then they can sue all day every day to make this point (that I still don't get) and no one gets to get financially ruined.
Or.. maybe it *is* about the money, and fear, and control, and power.
On the post: Norway Decides Privacy Is More Important Than Protecting The Entertainment Industry's Business Model
Re:
On the post: Norway Decides Privacy Is More Important Than Protecting The Entertainment Industry's Business Model
Re: Re: Re: Why an IP address is private information
So, using reading comprehension, if the thinks the connection between public data, like an IP address or phone number, and the actual owner of that data is private, then why would you ask him to make the connection?
He *just* said that knowing which number goes with which person is private data.
Sheesh.
On the post: Richard Marx, One Of The Artists Jammie Thomas Supposedly Shared, Blasts Verdict, Apologizes
Slightly off-topic, again
On the post: Do School Administrators Not Realize Students Have Access To The Internet?
Re:
/sarcasm
On the post: Do School Administrators Not Realize Students Have Access To The Internet?
Re: Not a Free Speech Issue
...or post it online.
..oh wait...
On the post: If Downloading A Song Is Just Like Stealing A CD, Why Won't The RIAA Allow Reselling MP3s?
Off topic
Now, if I upload it to you, have I violated a copyright? Do they "own" the specific series of 1s and 0s?
I'm just curious how much (or little) control they have over rearranging bits on my hard drive.
On the post: ASCAP Now Claiming That Your Mobile Phone Ringing Is A Public Performance
Re: So here's the deal:
You're part of them problem, I'm afraid.
They claim that buying pirated DVDs/CDs funds terrorism, but I'd be more likely to believe that legally buying their media is funding terrorism..
On the post: ASCAP Now Claiming That Your Mobile Phone Ringing Is A Public Performance
Re:
Onto horse stables, dentist offices, garages, etc: I don't factor in the music that is playing in any of these places when deciding which one to give my money to, so why would they need to pay? They aren't making a profit due to the music, they are making a profit and happen to have music playing.
It's greed, plain and simple. The fact that you swallow the bogus rules they've designed to make them richer reflect very poorly on you.
On the post: Woman Who Owned No Computer, But Got Sued By The RIAA, 'Settles'
No check marks..
On the post: The Constitutional Problems With The Award In The Jammie Thomas Case
Re: Supreme Court
I could steal (I mean, physically go and take) **20** CDs and not have to pay that much.
What kind of world do we live in where a group of random citizens feels that it's okay to ruin someone's life because they shared 24 songs for free, with no noticible or proven harm to the rights holders? I weep for my country for many reasons, but this jumps high up on the list.
Also, I'd really like to find a list of the 24 songs, is anyone can point me to it.
On the post: The Constitutional Problems With The Award In The Jammie Thomas Case
Re: It's a cever plan to save america
However, since the money actually all goes to the record labels, and not the government, I'm going to pretend that you were subtlely hinting that the record labels control the government to such a degree that they might as well be considered the government.
Well done, sir. Well done.
On the post: The Constitutional Problems With The Award In The Jammie Thomas Case
Re: Misguided
On the post: The Constitutional Problems With The Award In The Jammie Thomas Case
Re: The damages are within the law
Not only is it not theft, but she is being tried for shaing music, not downloading it. Giving something away isn't stealing. It was shown that she was buying CDs before and after the time of infringement. The only people we are certain downloaded music is MediaSentry.
Bottom line, it's not stealing any more than it's music traitorism. Or music rape, or music double parking. Just stop.
On the post: The Constitutional Problems With The Award In The Jammie Thomas Case
Re:
Second, I don't know about you, but I'm equally unable to pay a 1.5 million judgement as I am a 225 million judgement. Either way I file for bankruptcy. I say the try her luck. The worst that can happn is nothing different.
On the post: Jammie Thomas Ordered To Pay $1.92 Million
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Seems like a scam to me.
On the post: Jammie Thomas Ordered To Pay $1.92 Million
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Next >>