[yepyep_]

Quote:

Originally Posted by SweetAdeline /img/forum/go_quote.gif Well yeah, but I mean legally.

What ? You do know what oink was, right ? It was shut down for a reason.

 

[SweetAdeline]

Quote:

Originally Posted by yepyep_ /img/forum/go_quote.gif What ? You do know what oink was, right ? It was shut down for a reason.

Yes. I was asking what happened to the founders of the site. I know they were facing legal troubles.

 

[Edwood]

A lot of people need to brush up on their legal terminology. Google terms like "copyright ingringement" and "theft". There is a difference.

Sure semantics for some.

But also, REAL Piracy is a real problem. Costing real lives and real money.

There have been some actual news coverage on a particular band of pirates operating around Somalia. And in some cases, there is some real irony when a cargo ship loaded with games, music, and movies are hijacked.

-Ed

 

[chesebert]

Quote:

Originally Posted by chesebert /img/forum/go_quote.gif are you a pre-law student? sounds like one

Quote:

Originally Posted by Snake /img/forum/go_quote.gif LOL

'pre-law' is not a term of endearment

 

[yepyep_]

Quote:

Originally Posted by SweetAdeline /img/forum/go_quote.gif Yes. I was asking what happened to the founders of the site. I know they were facing legal troubles.

Alright. It just seemed a bit weird when you responded "Well yeah, but I mean legally.". As you well know, all three are/were not really a legal source of music.

 

[Bonthouse]

Oink was taken down because eventually people were uploading CDs weeks before they hit the streets, and that what killed that poor piggie.
And please note that there was no conviction against The Pirate Bay in any kind.
The people behind it got sentenced because there was huge pressure on the judge and jury, and there just had to be a fewbad guys in this movie. A real shame really..

 

[saintalfonzo]

Quote:

Originally Posted by -=Germania=- /img/forum/go_quote.gif I believe in paying for good music. I have even gone to buying the 24/96 masters online if they are availible. Most of the music you can get online is done in a med/low bitrate MP3 which is quite frankly, not worth the hard drive space. I don't support the practices of the RIAA. The mere fact they they have sued DEAD people or elderly who don't even own computers speaks for itself. Now, they are pressuring places like universities to do the work of tracking students. My sophmore year of college, they turned off my internet for 4 days (it was friday til monday because fo a weekend). I didn't do anything illegal, but they actually turned off my internet because of the amount of bandwidth I was using. At the time, I was doing some web hosting for members of my immediate family while comcast was repairing the cable line for their neighborhood. Then add my own web browing and watching shows on sites similar to Hulu, and downloading Lossless tracks or CD from places like HDtracks. Nothing illegal. In proving my innocence, I found out from NUIT that the RIAA had made threats and was pressuring the university to shut down anyone and report anyone who was using more than 40-50GB a month in bandwidth. That, IMO, was beyond ridiculous and made me doing my programming homework assignments a royal PIA as university computers do not have the correct software in many cases. Afterward, I got to be on a "special" list of high bandwidth users. I notice that afterward, the university system was doing far more checks on what was going on with my internet (I use a program that shows whenever some one is trying to access my computer and what their IP address is *a feature of peerguardian*). This slows down my internet connection for about 30 seconds and it comes by about every few hours. The point being that the RIAA is being a BULLY in many cases. I support artists and I do pay for music. As far as artists actually being paid for their work, the big music labels have a long way to go IMO. One of y best friends in highschool, her father was a member of a semi-popular band in the late 70's. Well, the recording company started selling the album and song on iTunes and it was featured on a popular show about 4 years ago. The sales of this song on iTunes went wayy up. The record company would not give any of the members of the band any of the royalties because it didn't in their mind represent " The sale of single albums or full albums" as it was a digital download than the purchase of a palpable item. This recording company has very expensive lawyers and my friend's dad was now just a normal middle class superviser. He didn't have the money to even try to get the royalties and the cost of suing the record company would be almost equivalent to the royalty money if they won at all. When the RIAA starts following the letter of the law itself instead of "guilty until proven innocent" and the record companies do right by paying the artists by which they make their success, I WILL SUPPORT THE RIAA. Until such time, it is morally wrong for me to support either side.

Well you've outlined why you're mostly giving money to the wrong people when you buy music, and also why I feel no guilt in downloading most music for free. I support a lot of bands I like by seeing them in concert (remember concerts, when bands used to play live to make money?) and purchasing merch/cds at their shows. I also purchase music directly downloaded from their sites. In the case of newer bands I haven't seen, I preview with downloads. If I like it I will buy it. In the case of downloading older bands I don't really think I'm putting a dent in the pocket of people like David Gilmour, Paul McCartney etc..

You're wrong in the statement that most of what you find free is low quality, in fact it's quite easy to find multiple masters and sample rates of the same album in FLAC.

 

[Eisenhower]

Quote:

Originally Posted by milkweg /img/forum/go_quote.gif ??? You support the RIAA and yet you admit to pirating music. That seems hypocritical to me. Many artists do not support the RIAA because the RIAA represents the recording publishers who have been ripping off the artists for decades. And an mp3 is not a duplicate of a cd because it is a lossy format so no one is stealing a copy of the original. That's like saying I stole the Mona Lisa because I found a cheap print of the Mona Lisa in a dumpster. The fact they think people should pay the same for an mp3 as a cd is proof enough that it is the RIAA who are the real crooks.

In what way is that hypocritical?
It would be hypocritical if I chided others for downloading music, but I specifically did not do that. I only wish that the RIAA would prevent these sites from making theft so easy for us.

If the artists think the RIAA rips them off, maybe they shouldn't have signed a record deal, or at least read their contract better. Either way, in no way does give you the right to steal their music. The entire point of signing with the RIAA in the first place is that their music will be copyrighted.

Your mp3 argument is filled with too many holes to comprehend. For one, you can pirate lossless formats last I checked.

 

[Suntory_Times]

Quote:

Originally Posted by chesebert /img/forum/go_quote.gif uh...a Swedish trial court decision has 0 precedential value to the US jurisprudence;

Technically it does, it is just a persuasive precedent that doesn't have to be followed.


Thank good, i'm sick of piracy (though I do technically pirate games in that I make copies of the games I own on my 360, though I don't think that would quite constitutes as piracy to the courts). I also pirated Evanescence before the release of fallen (i'm talking about before there record deal when there ep's and origin was released. There was no way to get that where I from the band to do it live and I also know have the blessing to do it). There has also been some very rare metal bands whos cd's have been out of production for many years and simply don't come up for sale that I downloaded. That bieng said once again, the band gave permission for others to download the music of the net for free.

 

[Jplaz]

I thought I'd point out that I recently downloaded an e-book of To Kill a Mockingbird, even though I own a copy. It's a lot easier to be able to search, and I'm not going to pay for something twice.

 

[Suntory_Times]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jplaz /img/forum/go_quote.gif I thought I'd point out that I recently downloaded an e-book of To Kill a Mockingbird, even though I own a copy. It's a lot easier to be able to search, and I'm not going to pay for something twice.

Was the ebook on cd, if so, why not just make a digital copy yourself? Not judging just wondering why?

I think its time for blu ray to be use as a form of music disc (more frequently then it currently is). Try watching a film with a good set-up with lossless audio and listen to the score in particular (the Blade Runner score alone in lossless is something to behold). Sorry a little side rant, but it would reduce piracy as blu's take a long time to make copies for and it is very expensive to do so.

 

[Snake]

Quote:

Originally Posted by chesebert /img/forum/go_quote.gif 'pre-law' is not a term of endearment

I know

That's why it's also funny

I am certainly not too big to pop my own bubble.

Keep 'em coming!

 

[milkweg]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Eisenhower /img/forum/go_quote.gif In what way is that hypocritical? It would be hypocritical if I chided others for downloading music, but I specifically did not do that. I only wish that the RIAA would prevent these sites from making theft so easy for us.

But then later in your post you admit to downloading MP3s so that is hypocrisy.

Also, did you read Germania's post? If the music publishers lawyers claims the artist can't claim royalty fees from MP3 sales because they are not a palpable item then how can they possibly sue people for downloading non-palpable item? THat makes them complete hypocrites and much more I can't mention here.

My arguments are perfectly comprehensible and not full of holes. The only difference is that I don't have a double speak lawyer to persuade the judge of my arguments.

 

[Uncle Erik]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Suntory_Times /img/forum/go_quote.gif Technically it does, it is just a persuasive precedent that doesn't have to be followed.

Forgive my ignorance of the Swedish legal system, but I believe that Sweden is a code based system, in the Roman tradition, and their primary laws come mostly from the Swedish Code of Statutes. It looks like the appellate courts publish written opinions, but I don't know if those opinions become common law.

From what I gather, this was a decision of a lower court, and one that does not publish opinions. My best guess is that the Court issued some sort of verdict form without comment or opinion. I think this will have to get before an appellate court before anything citable will come out. And if Sweden is code-based, then any opinion won't be precedent. It'll just be an opinion.

As for the whole copyright/IP mess, I think that intellectual property should be taxed just like real and personal property. Maybe lay off the taxes for the first few years, but if you want to keep it going, then you have to pay up. And if you don't pay up, the work goes straight to the public domain.

This would solve a number of problems. For one, copyright has been pushed to ridiculous lengths almost entirely because of Mickey Mouse. Mickey's copyright was about up, so Disney paid off Congress to extend the copyright period.

I don't really have a problem with Disney keeping the copyright on their stuff, but that also affected a whole lot of other work that should be public domain. That's why I think it would be a good idea for Disney to pay X amount of dollars to preserve that copyright beyond the regular period. I think that's fair. Disney would get what they wanted, it wouldn't prevent other work from going to the public, and the public would benefit from the additional tax revenue.

I imagine that most corporations wouldn't be happy with that, but it would give them the protection they want as long as they paid for it. If we have to pay taxes on real and personal property, it's only fair to pay taxes on intellectual property, too.

 

[fraseyboy]

The internet is very powerful.

The lawyer firm that took the case's website has already been DDOSed. Sites are being hacked, faxes are being spammed.

They will not get away with it unharmed.