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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
Well if Hans Mahr said that, then he is pretty oblivious too then. With a statement like: They also need to find new ways to make money by charging extra for news delivered via phones and other smart device
I guess he's never used a smartphone before. Most smartphones that are available now can surf the internet and receive RSS feeds in the same way a computer can.
Yes I have seen a Flickr page, a so it seems that you are saying that the ad (it's about 100x300 pixels) that Flickr embeds on pages makes it commercial use, even though the photos are on the person's personal Flickr page? Then I suppose by your logic any page that has even a tiny AdSense ad is also a commercial use.
So then my question to you is: Do you view any on-line presentation of the photos as non-commercial? An actual example (as opposed to a hypothetical that you are so fond of) would be nice.
It sounds to me like you pretty much defining any and all on-line use as commercial, which is completely ridiculous.
Example, even with the IOC's permission, you can sell images of the Olypmics, but if you use them to endorse a product and there is an athlete identifiable in the image, then you also need their release.
Sounds like there shouldn't be any problem with the images or the fact that Giles made them CCL. Creative Commons License has a specific clause saying that the images can only be used for non-commercial purposes unless additional permission is obtained from the original rights holder (person who took the photograph).
And once again, AC, you make a comment that does not actually correspond to the way things work in real life. Reporting and commenting on facts is not something that can be copyrighted.
I know this is your favorite way to be misleading, making it seem as if News aggregators are somehow stealing from the big content publishers. It just isn't the case.
Although, at least we can agree about Faux news being misleading.
Most pop stars these days perform dance routines (not so many pale goths in teen culture these days) and if a teenager with half a brain cell wants to look like their role model they know it will take 200 sit ups and some running, not starvation.
Unfortunately many people don't realize(and your statement seems to reinforce) the fact that in order to be healthy and lean you have to have both good nutrition and exercise. Exercise alone while ignoring your body dietary needs is extremely unhealthy. Also, there is actually more than one type of Anorexia. One form of Anorexia involves overexercising, where a person may exercise for 6-10 hours per day. This type of Anorexia actually causes even more problems than just not eating.
Most aggregators ignore robots.txt. Topix is a prime example.
Considering the fact that Fox and AP keep talking about Google over and over, and Google does not ignore robots.txt, I do not understand how this is even the slightest bit relevant. Plus, your example of one site that (you think) ignores robots.txt does not mean that "most" aggregators ignore it. In fact, just about all of the ones I can think of respect the robots.txt file (google, digg, linkedin). So I call BS on you.
P.S. I can always recognize you based on the content of your comments. Are you ever going to start commenting using a real username, since you come here and comment nearly every day?
Re: Re: Wow, lot's of misconceptions in the comments today
Are you just trying to misunderstand? Of course they have the right to block anyone for any reason or even no reason at all, but trying to block all users of a specific software would just create a cat and mouse game and would not accomplish anything.
On the post: Extortion Is Profitable Too, Doesn't Mean That It's A Fair Way To Profit Off Piracy
Nic, you did a poor job
On the post: Extortion Is Profitable Too, Doesn't Mean That It's A Fair Way To Profit Off Piracy
What about...
On the post: Extortion Is Profitable Too, Doesn't Mean That It's A Fair Way To Profit Off Piracy
That's not an answer
What about this file: "Sicko, full length movie"
On the post: Extortion Is Profitable Too, Doesn't Mean That It's A Fair Way To Profit Off Piracy
The problem with "you just know" argument
Nic: Since you "just know" please tell me which are authorized and which are not.
On the post: Extortion Is Profitable Too, Doesn't Mean That It's A Fair Way To Profit Off Piracy
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.
On the post: Extortion Is Profitable Too, Doesn't Mean That It's A Fair Way To Profit Off Piracy
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.
On the post: Extortion Is Profitable Too, Doesn't Mean That It's A Fair Way To Profit Off Piracy
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".
On the post: Extortion Is Profitable Too, Doesn't Mean That It's A Fair Way To Profit Off Piracy
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?
On the post: Extortion Is Profitable Too, Doesn't Mean That It's A Fair Way To Profit Off Piracy
Re: Re: yeah yeah, but...
I mean whether not weather. Dang, I always do that.
On the post: Extortion Is Profitable Too, Doesn't Mean That It's A Fair Way To Profit Off Piracy
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.
On the post: Extortion Is Profitable Too, Doesn't Mean That It's A Fair Way To Profit Off Piracy
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.
On the post: Extortion Is Profitable Too, Doesn't Mean That It's A Fair Way To Profit Off Piracy
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.
On the post: The AP and News Corp DEMAND To Be Paid For Their Content
I guess Hans doesnt get it either though
They also need to find new ways to make money by charging extra for news delivered via phones and other smart device
I guess he's never used a smartphone before. Most smartphones that are available now can surf the internet and receive RSS feeds in the same way a computer can.
On the post: Olympics Clarifies Problems With Flickr Photos... But Still Doesn't Make Sense
Re: So what isn;t commercial by your definition
So then my question to you is: Do you view any on-line presentation of the photos as non-commercial? An actual example (as opposed to a hypothetical that you are so fond of) would be nice.
It sounds to me like you pretty much defining any and all on-line use as commercial, which is completely ridiculous.
On the post: Olympics Clarifies Problems With Flickr Photos... But Still Doesn't Make Sense
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Olympics Clarifies Problems With Flickr Photos... But Still Doesn't Make Sense
Re: Re: Re: Sounds like no problem then
Sounds like there shouldn't be any problem with the images or the fact that Giles made them CCL. Creative Commons License has a specific clause saying that the images can only be used for non-commercial purposes unless additional permission is obtained from the original rights holder (person who took the photograph).
On the post: The AP and News Corp DEMAND To Be Paid For Their Content
Re: Once again
I know this is your favorite way to be misleading, making it seem as if News aggregators are somehow stealing from the big content publishers. It just isn't the case.
Although, at least we can agree about Faux news being misleading.
On the post: Ralph Lauren And Its Lawyers Discover The Streisand Effect On Bogus DMCA Takedown
Re: Skinny teenagers ?
Unfortunately many people don't realize(and your statement seems to reinforce) the fact that in order to be healthy and lean you have to have both good nutrition and exercise. Exercise alone while ignoring your body dietary needs is extremely unhealthy. Also, there is actually more than one type of Anorexia. One form of Anorexia involves overexercising, where a person may exercise for 6-10 hours per day. This type of Anorexia actually causes even more problems than just not eating.
On the post: The AP and News Corp DEMAND To Be Paid For Their Content
Re: If it were only that easy...
Considering the fact that Fox and AP keep talking about Google over and over, and Google does not ignore robots.txt, I do not understand how this is even the slightest bit relevant. Plus, your example of one site that (you think) ignores robots.txt does not mean that "most" aggregators ignore it. In fact, just about all of the ones I can think of respect the robots.txt file (google, digg, linkedin). So I call BS on you.
P.S. I can always recognize you based on the content of your comments. Are you ever going to start commenting using a real username, since you come here and comment nearly every day?
On the post: Craigslist's Dumb Lawsuit Against Spam Tools Provider
Re: Re: Wow, lot's of misconceptions in the comments today
Next >>