[analogbox]

Quote:

Originally Posted by TopPop /img/forum/go_quote.gif Still illegal. I don't get what the problem is here. Don't break the law, and there's nothing to worry about.

That's only if you find this law to be legitimate. Still, there are people who argue that it isn't illegal since the downloader isn't stealing anything, they're only downloading what's already available out in public. If there anybody at fault, it's the person who put it up in the first place. For example, if somebody steals your stuff and sells it on the street, the buyer of your stuff won't be held responsible, it will be the seller as long as your stuff isn't something illegal to begin with. (say, drugs and weapons)

The answer isn't up to us. It isn't the matter of people not downloading copyrighted materials from internet. As much as that argument is forwarded, there will always be people downloading stuff from internet no matter what. The RIAA just have to come up with a neutral point where people can still benefit from downloading contents from internet while they can make a reasonable profit in return. As of now, RIAA is just being plain greedy at this point.

 

[TopPop]

Quote:

Originally Posted by analogbox /img/forum/go_quote.gif That's only if you find this law to be legitimate. Still, there are people who argue that it isn't illegal since the downloader isn't stealing anything, they're only downloading what's already available out in public.

It doesn't matter what I think about the law at all. I'm not in a position to make or annul a law. There is a word for a type of society where people simply pick and choose the laws they will follow... or just stop following them altogether: anarchy.
Whether or not I agree with a law, as a citizen of the United States I agree to abide by it, and if I don't, I realize that there may or may not be consequences for my actions. If I don't like it, I can move to a different country where the laws are more to my liking.


Quote:

Originally Posted by analogbox /img/forum/go_quote.gif If there anybody at fault, it's the person who put it up in the first place. For example, if somebody steals your stuff and sells it on the street, the buyer of your stuff won't be held responsible, it will be the seller as long as your stuff isn't something illegal to begin with. (say, drugs and weapons)

But they will be held responsible if they know beforehand that the merchandise is stolen. No difference.


Quote:

Originally Posted by analogbox /img/forum/go_quote.gif The answer isn't up to us.

You're right. It's not. It's up to the ones that we trust to make laws to govern our society.

 

[bahamaman]

Quote:

Originally Posted by analogbox /img/forum/go_quote.gif That's only if you find this law to be legitimate. Still, there are people who argue that it isn't illegal since the downloader isn't stealing anything, they're only downloading what's already available out in public.

The people who (in your words) argue it isn't illegal, unfortunately, have no clue what they are talking about.

And, to echo TopPop, I would not feel comfortable living in a society where individuals had the freedom to obey only those laws they personally felt were legitimate. I cannot imagine you would either.

 

[TopPop]

Quote:

Originally Posted by bahamaman /img/forum/go_quote.gif The people who (in your words) argue it isn't illegal, unfortunately, have no clue what they are talking about. And, to echo TopPop, I would not feel comfortable living in a society where individuals had the freedom to obey only those laws they personally felt were legitimate. I cannot imagine you would either.

Hear, hear.

OT: bahamaman, are you a woman? I was just wondering, since I just now read your avatar name: bahamaman

 

[analogbox]

Quote:

Originally Posted by TopPop /img/forum/go_quote.gif But they will be held responsible if they know beforehand that the merchandise is stolen. No difference.

Yes. You're right. But the issue here is that that law is built on so many gray areas that people don't really trust in these laws. There've been cases where the downloader was charged for downloading contents from the internet but usually the prosecution takes forever to have the verdict even then there aren't any serious charges because when it comes to internet everything is still gray the prosecutors can't even firmly build their cases against the accused. Because of this people still don't know whether it's right or not and takes chances. This government once banned the sale of alchohol just out of ignorance to implement new rules but people still bought and drank alcohol. The problem wans't the alcohol but the lack of system and rules which is the same case here.

 

[pwrusr]

Quote:

Originally Posted by chadbang /img/forum/go_quote.gif "The Recording Industry Association of America said on Friday it had abandoned mass lawsuits against Internet users who steal music, and instead would work with Internet service providers to discourage piracy." Music industry ends mass piracy lawsuits | Entertainment | Music | Reuters HUZZAH!!!

If you read the whole thing you'd notice that they still reserved the right to sue people who didn't mind the warnings.

Quote:

"We think this is going to be a different form of stick, but we absolutely think this will be a meaningful alternative approach that will have a significant impact," said Cara Duckworth, a spokeswoman for the RIAA. Other measures will be taken against Internet users who ignore their first warning notice to stop illegally downloading music, and if those users continue they could find their Internet connections disconnected, the RIAA said. The RIAA declined to say which ISPs had signed on for the initiative, and it said it reserved the right to sue Internet users who ignored the warning notices.

*edit... at least we will get a warning now before they sue the crap out of us.

 

[TopPop]

Quote:

Originally Posted by analogbox /img/forum/go_quote.gif The problem wans't the alcohol but the lack of system and rules which is the same case here.

That's a good point, actually.

But I still believe it's not our right to just go ahead and do what we will in the meantime. There is a system in place for making laws, and if we want our voice to be heard, it should be through voting and bring these issues to the attention of our congress persons, not through being subversive in the hopes that our government will follow our lead.

For the record, I'm not saying that we should follow everything our government says that we should do, in all cases. If citizens did that, history would have lead us to a drastically different (and worse) place then we are today. If a government is being blatantly oppressive and committing crimes against the greater good of its citizens, revolt and revolution are, and should be, close behind. But this is hardly the case here. Contrary to "popular" belief, I think that our government really does keep the best intentions of its people in mind when it makes decisions for their well-being. I'm genuinely glad to be where I am.

 

[bahamaman]

Quote:

Originally Posted by TopPop /img/forum/go_quote.gif Hear, hear. OT: bahamaman, are you a woman? I was just wondering, since I just now read your avatar name: bahamaman

Nope, just a guy.

 

[TopPop]

Quote:

Originally Posted by bahamaman /img/forum/go_quote.gif Nope, just a guy.

Oh, ha ha!

You know that "maman" means "mommy" in French, right?

 

[bahamaman]

Quote:

Originally Posted by TopPop /img/forum/go_quote.gif Oh, ha ha! You know that "maman" means "mommy" in French, right?

Yes, my German-but-fluent-French-speaking-wife let me know that soon after I adopted it. Oh well, it probably indicates I am subconsciously trying to stay in touch with my feminine side.

 

[TopPop]

Quote:

Originally Posted by bahamaman /img/forum/go_quote.gif Yes, my German-but-fluent-French-speaking-wife let me know that soon after I adopted it. Oh well, it probably indicates I am subconsciously trying to stay in touch with my feminine side.

Ah, that's okay.

I'm not really a dad...

 

[mape00]

Here's one for your mp3 players!

I get scared by people who argue that file sharing etc. is bad because it's illegal. That's not an argument. It's just circular and sheepish. Lots of things have been illegal in past times, and lots of things which are legal today will become illegal in the future. You can't threaten people to have certain moral values. At least not in Sweden. Maybe you can in America? I don't know.

 

[TopPop]

Quote:

Originally Posted by mape00 /img/forum/go_quote.gif Here's one for your mp3 players! I get scared by people who argue that file sharing etc. is bad because it's illegal. That's not an argument. It's just circular and sheepish. Lots of things have been illegal in past times, and lots of things which are legal today will become illegal in the future. You can't threaten people to have certain moral values. At least not in Sweden. Maybe you can in America? I don't know.

Just because it's a circular argument doesn't make the thing argued against correct.

Why can't I rob you? Other than the fact that it's illegal, I see no reason not to. It betters my own situation, doesn't it? And since everything's relativistic nowadays, you can't say that I'm wrong to do so. I think it's right because it makes me feel good and gives me things that I want, and you can't tell me otherwise, or I'll cry "Relative truth! Relative truth! There are no absolutes!"

Relativity has become the new ruler of our age...

Now gimmee your stuff.

 

[mape00]

Quote:

Originally Posted by TopPop /img/forum/go_quote.gif Why can't I rob you? Other than the fact that its illegal, I see no reason not to. It betters my own situation, doesn't it? And since everything's relativistic nowadays, you can't say that I'm wrong to do so. I think it's right because it makes me feel good and gives me things that I want, and you can't tell me otherwise, or I'll cry "Relative truth! Relative truth! There are no absolutes!" Relativity has become the new ruler of our age... Now gimmee your stuff.

Did I mention "relativity"? Did I claim that the stupidity of a circular argument against file sharing somehow validates my supposed point of view? I just think file sharing is a complex issue, and not as black and white as some would like to make us believe. Maybe artists are having a hard time putting food on their tables. If so, maybe that's a problem. Is the solution suing people (and making certain unlucky individuals bankrupt to make an example)? Putting people in jail? I'm not so sure. On the other hand, maybe file sharing (for strictly non-profit use) in a larger perspective would be beneficial for the society as a whole. Maybe copyright laws should be loosened up, artists' business models changed, and things will work out in a more constructive way.

In any case, robbing has nothing to do with intellectual rights. File sharing is definitely not stealing. It's not even close. Maybe it's a kind of cheating, but you can't just make up astronomical hypothetical losses like the RIAA and other lobby organizations do when they sue people. If it should be a crime, and I am not even sure of this, it should be considered a petty crime, like speeding or jaywalking.

 

[TopPop]

Quote:

Originally Posted by mape00 /img/forum/go_quote.gif Did I claim that the stupidity of a circular argument against file sharing somehow validates my supposed point of view?

No, but you did claim that it invalidates mine.

Quote:

Originally Posted by mape00 /img/forum/go_quote.gif In any case, robbing has nothing to do with intellectual rights. File sharing is definitely not stealing. It's not even close.

I never said that it did. I used the analogy of stealing to give another example of a case where using the "circular" argument of "it's illegal" would be the only recourse one would have to claim that another's actions are wrong.

My point was that saying that something is wrong because it's illegal does not make the argument useless, even thought it may be circular.