Parliament dictates what is criminal and civil law to me.
Piracy is not a criminal offence. It is illegal. But not criminal.
I'm not sure why you believe it is a criminal offence. Do you understand the difference between criminal and civil law?
Piracy is not theft.
Theft is theft.
Piracy is piracy.
Theft is a criminal offence.
Piracy is a civil offence.
For what it's worth I don't need parliament to point my moral compass. I'm perfectly able to see for myself that the harm done by downloading a pirate copy is much less than the harm done stealing a physical copy, and that the harm done by one person downloading some games and movies is less than the harm done by someone setting up a website like the Piratebay.
The reason I brought up the difference between criminal and civil law with regards to piracy is to point out to you there is a marked difference and that it is very clear for all to recognise. In the grand scheme of things, if you download some movies, it's not a very big deal.
Enkindu, few questions, when you were a musician, playing live, did you ever perform a cover of a song during a paying gig? If yes, did you reimburse the song's writer? You were making a profit off someone else's hard work, dont thiey deserve some compensation?
It doesn't have to be a paying gig. Any public performance.
Under law you could owe them money just for singing it in the bathroom mirror.
Likewise, if you draw a picture of a Porsche, that's not your IP. You have made an illegal copy of someone's copywrighted property. It's piracy under the law.
How far do you actually want to take all this nonsense?
Where do we draw the line. Where is the happy medium? I don't think we need to give you a criminal record.
@sepher Parliament dictates what is criminal and civil law to me. Piracy is not a criminal offence. It is illegal. But not criminal.
I'm not sure why you believe it is a criminal offence. Do you understand the difference between criminal and civil law?
Piracy is not theft. Theft is theft. Piracy is piracy. Theft is a criminal offence. Piracy is a civil offence.
@Sargoth. You are incorrect there are no criminal laws about downloading illegal copies. Only civil. You may wish that there are, you may believe it to be so serious an offence that it deserves to be. But it isn't. You are over-reacting.
My bad, I didn't know you were in the UK. I don't know your laws.
It is criminal and theft here in the US though; and yes I understand the difference between civil and criminal law, we have criminal laws against copyright infringement and electronic theft here. I wouldn't be surprised if the UK did s well since it's a participant in the WIPO.
What you seem to not understand the most is the concept of electronic/digital theft. You believe no theft occurs unless it's physical. That's pretty ridiculous though.
How come there's morality when it comes to the physical packaging itself? It's not like you only ever leave a few quarters to pay for the plastic and paper; you shell out the other 20 dollars as well for the copied work actually on the discs.
Whether a work is copied onto plastic or copied onto your HD; its necessary that you pay the price regardless.
Enkindu, few questions, when you were a musician, playing live, did you ever perform a cover of a song during a paying gig? If yes, did you reimburse the song's writer? You were making a profit off someone else's hard work, dont thiey deserve some compensation?
Cover bands are legal. Even selling covered music recordings are legal and protected by compulsory licenses.
So long as there's no trademark infringements alongside what copyright laws allow, then there's no issue.
People pay for cover bands and know what they're getting into, nothin' wrong with that.
Theft is a different crime to piracy. Similar but not the same.
In order for something to be stolen, something must be removed. Making a copy does not steal anything. It reproduces something.
Stealing a physically packaged item removes that item from another persons possession. They have lost something. This is theft.
When you make a copy of something, nothing is lost. The person you took it from still has it.
Making a pirate copy reproduces something without the copywright holders permission. It is a breach of copywright.
With regards to criminal law in the U.S. It is my opinion that piracy cases are brought by large companies not the government. Organisations like the RIAA. It's civil law.
Enkindu, few questions, when you were a musician, playing live, did you ever perform a cover of a song during a paying gig? If yes, did you reimburse the song's writer? You were making a profit off someone else's hard work, dont thiey deserve some compensation?
Cover bands are legal. Even selling covered music recordings are legal and protected by compulsory licenses.
So long as there's no trademark infringements alongside what copyright laws allow, then there's no issue.
People pay for cover bands and know what they're getting into, nothin' wrong with that.
Lisenced cover bands are legal if they have the songwriters permission.
If not, they are illegal.
The song belongs to the copywright holder. He not only has the right to dictate who sings it, but how it is sung.
It might be criminal, but it's still not theft. Theft is a different crime to piracy. Similar but not the same. In order for something to be stolen, something must be removed. Making a copy does not steal anything. It reproduces something. Stealing a physically packaged item removes that item from another persons possession. They have lost something. This is theft.
When you make a copy of something, nothing is lost. The person you took it from still has it. Making a pirate copy reproduces something without the copywright holders permission. It is a breach of copywright.
With regards to criminal law in the U.S. It is my opinion that piracy cases are brought by large companies not the government. Organisations like the RIAA. It's civil law.
Depends on how you split the hairs, to me "theft" is general; there's physical and theres electronic theft. Both are theft so I don't see the problem identifying both as the same. For your sake though I've used the term electronic theft.
And if you understand that piracy is criminal; well for what reason would you go that far if you still don't believe it is theft? Electronic theft and copyright infringement are the reasons it is criminal.
As for attempting to exempt reproduction from theft; we're talking about intellectual property here, reproducing protected works through whatever means is considered theft and not dependent upon 'removing' anything.
Violating another person's intellectual property is stealing from them. If you can understand how products based on an IP can be sold, you should understand how they can be stolen. What you're arguing is akin to suggesting iTunes should remove all "buy' buttons because you aren't actually removing anything from inventory.
More importantly, theft via piracy does create "losses". Just not as easily observed as shoplifting, but just as evident. It's not a victimless or harmless crime.
And yes that's how it used to be up until now; individual copyright holders were responsible for protecting their own copyrights. Not anymore. The new Act I've mentioned numerous times in this thread calls for a number of "coordinators" to be created that that operate both domestically and internationally to prosecute people and entities in violation of the laws we have against intellectual property and copyright infringement.
One task of the new "coordinators'" is to spread the same agenda internationally and attempt to get similar measures passed elsewhere.
It's already been a joint effort internationally with the WIPO, but now its being handed over to the government; at least here.
It might be criminal, but it's still not theft. Theft is a different crime to piracy. Similar but not the same. In order for something to be stolen, something must be removed. Making a copy does not steal anything. It reproduces something. Stealing a physically packaged item removes that item from another persons possession. They have lost something. This is theft.
When you make a copy of something, nothing is lost. The person you took it from still has it. Making a pirate copy reproduces something without the copywright holders permission. It is a breach of copywright.
With regards to criminal law in the U.S. It is my opinion that piracy cases are brought by large companies not the government. Organisations like the RIAA. It's civil law.
Either way, UK or US laws, piracy is wrong. Your trying to sugar coat the whole ordeal and make yourself feel good for doing it. Your the problem in my book.
When a piscating wizard floods every thread I can understand why people leave.
Enkindu, few questions, when you were a musician, playing live, did you ever perform a cover of a song during a paying gig? If yes, did you reimburse the song's writer? You were making a profit off someone else's hard work, dont thiey deserve some compensation?
Cover bands are legal. Even selling covered music recordings are legal and protected by compulsory licenses.
So long as there's no trademark infringements alongside what copyright laws allow, then there's no issue.
People pay for cover bands and know what they're getting into, nothin' wrong with that.
Lisenced cover bands are legal if they have the songwriters permission.
If not, they are illegal.
The song belongs to the copywright holder. He not only has the right to dictate who sings it, but how it is sung.
Well, that's half-true.
As I've always seen it done, usually the venues themselves pay BMI/ASCAP and other organizations tasked with collecting royalties in scenarios like that along with their usual line-up of music (i.e. what DJs play).
When it falls on the cover bands themselves, they do need a compulsory license as I mentioned above; but compulsory licenses merely require letters of intent and no permission on behalf of whomever actually represents the work.
Royalties still have to be sent; but again with cover bands that usually when they're selling things. I've never met a DJ or cover band that pays instead of the actual venues. So when it comes to the topic at hand of Enkindu or whomever; I highly doubt a venue would've let 'em played and risked not having that straightened out; the venue itself would be more at fault.
Depends on how you split the hairs, to me "theft" is general; there's physical and theres electronic theft. Both are theft so I don't see the problem identifying both as the same. For your sake though I've used the term electronic theft. And if you understand that piracy is criminal; well for what reason would you go that far if you still don't believe it is theft? Electronic theft and copyright infringement are the reasons it is criminal. As for attempting to exempt reproduction from theft; we're talking about intellectual property here, reproducing protected works through whatever means is considered theft and not dependent upon 'removing' anything. Violating another person's intellectual property is stealing from them. If you can understand how products based on an IP can be sold, you should understand how they can be stolen. What you're arguing is akin to suggesting iTunes should remove all "buy' buttons because you aren't actually removing anything from inventory. More importantly, theft via piracy does create "losses". Just not as easily observed as shoplifting, but just as evident. It's not a victimless or harmless crime. And yes that's how it used to be up until now; individual copyright holders were responsible for protecting their own copyrights. Not anymore. The new Act I've mentioned numerous times in this thread calls for a number of "coordinators" to be created that that operate both domestically and internationally to prosecute people and entities in violation of the laws we have against intellectual property and copyright infringement. One task of the new "coordinators'" is to spread the same agenda internationally and attempt to get similar measures passed elsewhere. It's already been a joint effort internationally with the WIPO, but now its being handed over to the government; at least here.
Theft is theft. Breach of copywright is not theft, it is breach of copywright.
I argue that ITunes gets used because it is a service people value. That as long as people are willing to click "Buy" they should keep the buy button.
What I don't argue is that people who currently prefer to use a free service instead are criminals and should be treated as such. I think I'll save my jails for murders and rapists if that's alright with you.
While it is undoubtable that piracy is not a victimless crime, sometimes it is.
In the case of our earlier poster who downloaded The Sims a game he said he would never have bought, (and I believe him), no one has lost any money. The publisher hasn't lost a sale. In this case, and there are many like it piracy is a victimless crime.
Unfortunately it's not that clear cut, because many people who would otherwise buy it have downloaded it.
Personally I prefer the Swedish method. Legalise it. Lets get on with building new services that people do want to pay for, like ITunes and all the rest. Lets stop with all the nonsense about sending the majority of people to jail. Lets stop telling them what we expect them to do for us and threatening them what we will do to them if they do not, and instead let's ask them what we can do for them that they are willing to pay us for.
The old model is dead. You can die with it, or you can move with the times.
You want to criminalise vast swathes of society. Imprison them? Then you have no morals that I recognise.
Enkindu, few questions, when you were a musician, playing live, did you ever perform a cover of a song during a paying gig? If yes, did you reimburse the song's writer? You were making a profit off someone else's hard work, dont thiey deserve some compensation?
Cover bands are legal. Even selling covered music recordings are legal and protected by compulsory licenses.
So long as there's no trademark infringements alongside what copyright laws allow, then there's no issue.
People pay for cover bands and know what they're getting into, nothin' wrong with that.
Lisenced cover bands are legal if they have the songwriters permission.
If not, they are illegal.
The song belongs to the copywright holder. He not only has the right to dictate who sings it, but how it is sung.
Well, that's half-true.
As I've always seen it done, usually the venues themselves pay BMI/ASCAP and other organizations tasked with collecting royalties in scenarios like that along with their usual line-up of music (i.e. what DJs play).
When it falls on the cover bands themselves, they do need a compulsory license as I mentioned above; but compulsory licenses merely require letters of intent and no permission on behalf of whomever actually represents the work.
Royalties still have to be sent; but again with cover bands that usually when they're selling things. I've never met a DJ or cover band that pays instead of the actual venues. So when it comes to the topic at hand of Enkindu or whomever; I highly doubt a venue would've let 'em played and risked not having that straightened out; the venue itself would be more at fault.
I've promoted in the region of 800 gig's and events. Owned a record label, a TV production company and a sound system. Worked at management agencies, radio stations and recording studio's and the worlds largest music televison station, even a video game publisher in my time. "As I've always seen it done"? ROFL. In all my time, I never saw that.
Venues do not pay royalties on Dj's records or plagiarised songs. Neither is it their responsability to do so. Lmao, imagine the DJ's all surrendering a play list to the nightclub and pubs they work in.
Radio and TV pay royalties.
To cover any song you need the permission of the song writer. A letter of intent dosn't mean dick. If he doesn't want you to perform it, you aren't allowed to. And telling him or not telling him is no excuse, he can still prosecute you for piracy as you call it. Copywright Breach or "theft" of intellectual propertywright.
Dj's playing out people's records also need the permission of the copywright holder. Not that they ever bother to get it either. It is piracy. They are profiting from other peoples intellectual propertywright, but er... get a grip mate. You can't make a living chasing peanuts. You need to just let them go and work out what you can make a living from.
Theft is theft. Breach of copywright is not theft, it is breach of copywright. I argue that ITunes gets used because it is a service people value. That as long as people are willing to click "Buy" they should keep the buy button. What I don't argue is that people who currently prefer to use a free service instead are criminals and should be treated as such. I think I'll save my jails for murders and rapists if that's alright with you.
While it is undoubtable that piracy is not a victimless crime, sometimes it is. In the case of our earlier poster who downloaded The Sims a game he said he would never have bought, (and I believe him), no one has lost any money. The publisher hasn't lost a sale. In this case, and there are many like it piracy is a victimless crime. Unfortunately it's not that clear cut, because many people who would otherwise buy it have downloaded it. Personally I prefer the Swedish method. Legalise it. Lets get on with building new services that people do want to pay for, like ITunes and all the rest. Lets stop with all the nonsense about sending the majority of people to jail. Lets stop telling them what we expect them to do for us and threatening them what we will do to them if they do not, and instead let's ask them what we can do for them that they are willing to pay us for. The old model is dead. You can die with it, or you can move with the times.
You want to criminalise vast swathes of society. Imprison them? Then you have no morals that I recognise.
Yes, theft is theft, and electronic theft is a means of achieving copyright infringement. They aren't two different or conflicting things; when you commit electronic theft via reproduction and distribution through physical or digital means, you violate criminal infringement laws.
And the people that click "buy" are buying a product. It's their copy and it belongs to them.
As for using a "free service", any sort of free service isn't a crime, electronic theft however is. A "free service" that enables that kind of theft is criminal as well as seen with The Pirate Bay. That kind of "free service" isn't victimless, and thieves are criminals plain and simple.
And if piracy was based solely on people who wouldn't have bought products in the first place, that'd be a convenient excuse. It isn't however.
We can't approach the ESA and say "Hey, this guy on MMORPG.com wouldn't have bought it anyway. And you knowwhat? I believe him."
They're more inclined to believe the BSA's studies of piracy rates around the world, what happens when they're up, what happens when they're down, and what happens when they're going either way. It's based on that do these organizations get their fuel to cite revenues losses. It's plain FACTUAL that piracy equates to revenue losses. And no honest person that pirates can say they've never pirated something they wanted to buy but pirated instead.
As for me personally wanting some tens of millions of participants in illegal peer-to-peer file sharing to become criminals, of course not.
I won't ignore the realities of the law though and how effectual these large IP related organizations are becoming. What I want is for them to accomplish what they have to as quick as possible without the collateral damage of say, local law enforcement investigating piracy on behalf of the MPAA/RIAA/ESA, or our country resorting to internet censorship the way yours has when it came to The Pirate Bay.
What won't happen is these companies giving up the fight. They've already kindly asked for years that you stop pirating. Napster.com and BitTorrent.com are facilitators of legal content avenues now. So the excuse of the recording industry and hollywood not paying attention to what you want doesn't work, because what you want is free crap without consequence. I don't blame 'em for stopping the chase of any 'model' and instead breaking the volume dial in pursuing a remedy.
Because I care about what collateral damage can occur though; mainly any posturing in net neutrality and censorship, I hope for a swift end to the rampant piracy going about. I'm glad they're targeting the big public trackers, because that seems like a quick avenue to take a lot of wind out of the anti-piracy movement's sails when it comes to needing the government.
I've promoted in the region of 800 gig's and events. Owned a record label, a TV production company and a sound system. Worked at management agencies, radio stations and recording studio's and the worlds largest music televison station, even a video game publisher in my time. "As I've always seen it done"? ROFL. In all my time, I never saw that. Venues do not pay royalties on Dj's records or plagiarised songs. Neither is it their responsability to do so. Lmao, imagine the DJ's all surrendering a play list to the nightclub and pubs they work in. Radio and TV pay royalties. To cover any song you need the permission of the song writer. A letter of intent dosn't mean dick. If he doesn't want you to perform it, you aren't allowed to. And telling him or not telling him is no excuse, he can still prosecute you for piracy as you call it. Copywright Breach or "theft" of intellectual propertywright. Dj's playing out people's records also need the permission of the copywright holder. Not that they ever bother to get it either. It is piracy. They are profiting from other peoples intellectual propertywright, but er... get a grip mate. You can't make a living chasing peanuts. You need to just let them go and work out what you can make a living from. Arresting Bitorrenters? That's not the answer.
BMI and ASCAP similarly cover any other kind of music-related establishment you can think of. Like TV and Radio, they pay their licensing and then they're able to play or have played the millions of songs owned by the publishers that belong to those organizations. So none of the "submit a playlist" stuff; the licensing is blanketed.
And a compulsory license is an exception to copyright laws that allow things like cover albums. So there's no point in arguing the rule against the exception. Once you send the letter of intent, you have permission. Can they disallow you? Probably, but why? You pay royalties; its apart of how they make money, and you're one of thousands that do it; so law of averages there in even being paid attention to.
The important thing though is that you have PERMISSION without receiving a response. So if "he doesn't want you to", he'll have to say it, but whoever he is, he doesn't have to say "you have permission" before you have permission.
And again, more than likely any establishment you saw a DJ; that establishment itself pays either BMI or ASCAP for the license to do so. So no, there's no piracy, unless the venue itself risks itself.
As for "chasing the peanuts", that's precisely my point in saying the venues themselves would more than likely be in trouble, and my wishing that public trackers are taken down on the other point. Just like venues are held responsible for their content, so should these sites. One is lawful, one isn't. There's a difference from The Pirate Bay and last.fm even in the realm of the internet, one is lawful, one isn't.
Enkindu, few questions, when you were a musician, playing live, did you ever perform a cover of a song during a paying gig? If yes, did you reimburse the song's writer? You were making a profit off someone else's hard work, dont thiey deserve some compensation?
Cover bands are legal. Even selling covered music recordings are legal and protected by compulsory licenses.
So long as there's no trademark infringements alongside what copyright laws allow, then there's no issue.
People pay for cover bands and know what they're getting into, nothin' wrong with that.
This.
Of course we played covers. We always told the crowd what artist/ album we were covering and said "go out and buy records to support this great artist that we liked enough to include in our show."
We even had a few people covering our songs within the local scene.. I never saw it as anything more than a tribute/ free advertisement.
I can tell you I would have felt really betrayed, however, if I'd seen our fans passing out free ripped copies of our music. The difference in practice is blatantly obvious, which leads me to believe that supporters of piracy have never "created" anything worthwhile in their lives.
By the way, those of you saying "you didn't make it in music because you sucked" ....
I'll admit I was a total hack compared to many of the people I played with. I always knew I'd end up in a straight job. I was lucky enough to write a few decent songs.
I hate piracy because of the people it hurts the most.. the REALLY brilliant artists whose work is a truly valuable commodity.
Edit: typo
deviliscious: (PS. I have been told that when I use scientific language, it does not make me sound more intelligent, it only makes me sound like a jackass. It makes me appear that I am not knowledgable enough in the subject I am discussing to be able to translate it for people outside the field to understand. Some advice you might consider as well)
Is there a hell for pirates??? pirate hell.. where you have to buy everything that you ever downloaded from the internet.
No, it is worse.
In pirate hell you are forced to listen to an endless loop tape of Britney Spears, Anita Bryant, Wayne Newton, and Yanni.
deviliscious: (PS. I have been told that when I use scientific language, it does not make me sound more intelligent, it only makes me sound like a jackass. It makes me appear that I am not knowledgable enough in the subject I am discussing to be able to translate it for people outside the field to understand. Some advice you might consider as well)
Don't know if you've been paying attention but everyone here HATES DRM.
Piracy opened the door for DRM to waltz right through the front door and screw up everything.
deviliscious: (PS. I have been told that when I use scientific language, it does not make me sound more intelligent, it only makes me sound like a jackass. It makes me appear that I am not knowledgable enough in the subject I am discussing to be able to translate it for people outside the field to understand. Some advice you might consider as well)
I'm only interested in piracy being dealt with so that drastic anti-piracy measures won't have to exist. The only way the measures will end is if piracy ends. That of course will never happen, but the landscape can change from the open internet and important technologies, or dwindle to the point of irrelevancy.
Piracy effects a lot of things; reproduced cars for example. Who here cares about that? Probably not a lot of people; but its fought all of the time the same way movies, software and music piracy are fought. I'd love for piracy in our realm of things not to be a big deal; but right now it is so it has to change.
I'd love for piracy in our realm of things not to be a big deal; but right now it is so it has to change.
I kind of agree with this. I mean, I wont claim that i am innocent with piracy. It sounds bad but it's pretty convenient - to be honest. And it's something im sure people wish to never go away. But of course it's just plain wrong so it should be eliminated (kind of hard though hehe). I guess it should also start with people purchasing these media, they should stop redistributing it. I know there are hackers who hack softwares, but there are also people who are a bit too generous to give away what they've purchased to everyone Ü
It's not the ones making the music that is losing money to piracy, it's the distributors, the record companies.
No. Artists lose money as well, since they're due to earn a certain amount of dollars and cents per unit sold. Naturally, they're due to lose a certain amount of dollars and cents per unit not sold.
That link you showed isn't testament to anything different. I'm not sure what the article's "strike back" sentiment was supposed to mean; it's the goal of organizations like the RIAA for those kinds of sites to engage in lawful activity.
So long as that group owned their own publishing rights for what they put out, well what's the big deal? If they pirated their own work, then that's between them and whoever owns their publishing rights, and ofcourse the lawyers between them.
It's a complex matter, but the sum of it is of course piracy is bad, hurts our economy
Piracy may be bad but claiming that it hurts the economy is ridiculous. What do you think happens to the money saved by not buying a DVD or CD? It doesn't vanish into the ether, it gets spent elsewhere, therefore no difference to the economy at all.
I've heard lots of arguments from the media companies, all of them scaremongering hogwash. If they didn't churn out so much junk and have such stupid restrictions on what we can do with what we've paid for, they wouldn't be in this mess now.
I'd like to see a try before you buy model of some sort but the media companies would never go for that. They know 99.9% of what they churn out would never sell if people could try it first.
Comments
@sepher
Parliament dictates what is criminal and civil law to me.
Piracy is not a criminal offence. It is illegal. But not criminal.
I'm not sure why you believe it is a criminal offence. Do you understand the difference between criminal and civil law?
Piracy is not theft.
Theft is theft.
Piracy is piracy.
Theft is a criminal offence.
Piracy is a civil offence.
For what it's worth I don't need parliament to point my moral compass. I'm perfectly able to see for myself that the harm done by downloading a pirate copy is much less than the harm done stealing a physical copy, and that the harm done by one person downloading some games and movies is less than the harm done by someone setting up a website like the Piratebay.
The reason I brought up the difference between criminal and civil law with regards to piracy is to point out to you there is a marked difference and that it is very clear for all to recognise. In the grand scheme of things, if you download some movies, it's not a very big deal.
@Sargoth.
You are incorrect there are no criminal laws about downloading illegal copies. Only civil.
You may wish that there are, you may believe it to be so serious an offence that it deserves to be. But it isn't. You are over-reacting.
Enkindu, few questions, when you were a musician, playing live, did you ever perform a cover of a song during a paying gig? If yes, did you reimburse the song's writer? You were making a profit off someone else's hard work, dont thiey deserve some compensation?
It doesn't have to be a paying gig. Any public performance.
Under law you could owe them money just for singing it in the bathroom mirror.
Likewise, if you draw a picture of a Porsche, that's not your IP. You have made an illegal copy of someone's copywrighted property. It's piracy under the law.
How far do you actually want to take all this nonsense?
Where do we draw the line. Where is the happy medium? I don't think we need to give you a criminal record.
My bad, I didn't know you were in the UK. I don't know your laws.
It is criminal and theft here in the US though; and yes I understand the difference between civil and criminal law, we have criminal laws against copyright infringement and electronic theft here. I wouldn't be surprised if the UK did s well since it's a participant in the WIPO.
What you seem to not understand the most is the concept of electronic/digital theft. You believe no theft occurs unless it's physical. That's pretty ridiculous though.
How come there's morality when it comes to the physical packaging itself? It's not like you only ever leave a few quarters to pay for the plastic and paper; you shell out the other 20 dollars as well for the copied work actually on the discs.
Whether a work is copied onto plastic or copied onto your HD; its necessary that you pay the price regardless.
Cover bands are legal. Even selling covered music recordings are legal and protected by compulsory licenses.
So long as there's no trademark infringements alongside what copyright laws allow, then there's no issue.
People pay for cover bands and know what they're getting into, nothin' wrong with that.
It might be criminal, but it's still not theft.
Theft is a different crime to piracy. Similar but not the same.
In order for something to be stolen, something must be removed. Making a copy does not steal anything. It reproduces something.
Stealing a physically packaged item removes that item from another persons possession. They have lost something. This is theft.
When you make a copy of something, nothing is lost. The person you took it from still has it.
Making a pirate copy reproduces something without the copywright holders permission. It is a breach of copywright.
With regards to criminal law in the U.S. It is my opinion that piracy cases are brought by large companies not the government. Organisations like the RIAA. It's civil law.
Cover bands are legal. Even selling covered music recordings are legal and protected by compulsory licenses.
So long as there's no trademark infringements alongside what copyright laws allow, then there's no issue.
People pay for cover bands and know what they're getting into, nothin' wrong with that.
Lisenced cover bands are legal if they have the songwriters permission.
If not, they are illegal.
The song belongs to the copywright holder. He not only has the right to dictate who sings it, but how it is sung.
Depends on how you split the hairs, to me "theft" is general; there's physical and theres electronic theft. Both are theft so I don't see the problem identifying both as the same. For your sake though I've used the term electronic theft.
And if you understand that piracy is criminal; well for what reason would you go that far if you still don't believe it is theft? Electronic theft and copyright infringement are the reasons it is criminal.
As for attempting to exempt reproduction from theft; we're talking about intellectual property here, reproducing protected works through whatever means is considered theft and not dependent upon 'removing' anything.
Violating another person's intellectual property is stealing from them. If you can understand how products based on an IP can be sold, you should understand how they can be stolen. What you're arguing is akin to suggesting iTunes should remove all "buy' buttons because you aren't actually removing anything from inventory.
More importantly, theft via piracy does create "losses". Just not as easily observed as shoplifting, but just as evident. It's not a victimless or harmless crime.
And yes that's how it used to be up until now; individual copyright holders were responsible for protecting their own copyrights. Not anymore. The new Act I've mentioned numerous times in this thread calls for a number of "coordinators" to be created that that operate both domestically and internationally to prosecute people and entities in violation of the laws we have against intellectual property and copyright infringement.
One task of the new "coordinators'" is to spread the same agenda internationally and attempt to get similar measures passed elsewhere.
It's already been a joint effort internationally with the WIPO, but now its being handed over to the government; at least here.
Either way, UK or US laws, piracy is wrong. Your trying to sugar coat the whole ordeal and make yourself feel good for doing it. Your the problem in my book.
When a piscating wizard floods every thread I can understand why people leave.
Cover bands are legal. Even selling covered music recordings are legal and protected by compulsory licenses.
So long as there's no trademark infringements alongside what copyright laws allow, then there's no issue.
People pay for cover bands and know what they're getting into, nothin' wrong with that.
Lisenced cover bands are legal if they have the songwriters permission.
If not, they are illegal.
The song belongs to the copywright holder. He not only has the right to dictate who sings it, but how it is sung.
Well, that's half-true.
As I've always seen it done, usually the venues themselves pay BMI/ASCAP and other organizations tasked with collecting royalties in scenarios like that along with their usual line-up of music (i.e. what DJs play).
When it falls on the cover bands themselves, they do need a compulsory license as I mentioned above; but compulsory licenses merely require letters of intent and no permission on behalf of whomever actually represents the work.
Royalties still have to be sent; but again with cover bands that usually when they're selling things. I've never met a DJ or cover band that pays instead of the actual venues. So when it comes to the topic at hand of Enkindu or whomever; I highly doubt a venue would've let 'em played and risked not having that straightened out; the venue itself would be more at fault.
Theft is theft. Breach of copywright is not theft, it is breach of copywright.
I argue that ITunes gets used because it is a service people value. That as long as people are willing to click "Buy" they should keep the buy button.
What I don't argue is that people who currently prefer to use a free service instead are criminals and should be treated as such. I think I'll save my jails for murders and rapists if that's alright with you.
While it is undoubtable that piracy is not a victimless crime, sometimes it is.
In the case of our earlier poster who downloaded The Sims a game he said he would never have bought, (and I believe him), no one has lost any money. The publisher hasn't lost a sale. In this case, and there are many like it piracy is a victimless crime.
Unfortunately it's not that clear cut, because many people who would otherwise buy it have downloaded it.
Personally I prefer the Swedish method. Legalise it. Lets get on with building new services that people do want to pay for, like ITunes and all the rest. Lets stop with all the nonsense about sending the majority of people to jail. Lets stop telling them what we expect them to do for us and threatening them what we will do to them if they do not, and instead let's ask them what we can do for them that they are willing to pay us for.
The old model is dead. You can die with it, or you can move with the times.
You want to criminalise vast swathes of society. Imprison them? Then you have no morals that I recognise.
Cover bands are legal. Even selling covered music recordings are legal and protected by compulsory licenses.
So long as there's no trademark infringements alongside what copyright laws allow, then there's no issue.
People pay for cover bands and know what they're getting into, nothin' wrong with that.
Lisenced cover bands are legal if they have the songwriters permission.
If not, they are illegal.
The song belongs to the copywright holder. He not only has the right to dictate who sings it, but how it is sung.
Well, that's half-true.
As I've always seen it done, usually the venues themselves pay BMI/ASCAP and other organizations tasked with collecting royalties in scenarios like that along with their usual line-up of music (i.e. what DJs play).
When it falls on the cover bands themselves, they do need a compulsory license as I mentioned above; but compulsory licenses merely require letters of intent and no permission on behalf of whomever actually represents the work.
Royalties still have to be sent; but again with cover bands that usually when they're selling things. I've never met a DJ or cover band that pays instead of the actual venues. So when it comes to the topic at hand of Enkindu or whomever; I highly doubt a venue would've let 'em played and risked not having that straightened out; the venue itself would be more at fault.
I've promoted in the region of 800 gig's and events. Owned a record label, a TV production company and a sound system. Worked at management agencies, radio stations and recording studio's and the worlds largest music televison station, even a video game publisher in my time. "As I've always seen it done"? ROFL. In all my time, I never saw that.
Venues do not pay royalties on Dj's records or plagiarised songs. Neither is it their responsability to do so. Lmao, imagine the DJ's all surrendering a play list to the nightclub and pubs they work in.
Radio and TV pay royalties.
To cover any song you need the permission of the song writer. A letter of intent dosn't mean dick. If he doesn't want you to perform it, you aren't allowed to. And telling him or not telling him is no excuse, he can still prosecute you for piracy as you call it. Copywright Breach or "theft" of intellectual propertywright.
Dj's playing out people's records also need the permission of the copywright holder. Not that they ever bother to get it either. It is piracy. They are profiting from other peoples intellectual propertywright, but er... get a grip mate. You can't make a living chasing peanuts. You need to just let them go and work out what you can make a living from.
Arresting Bitorrenters? That's not the answer.
Yes, theft is theft, and electronic theft is a means of achieving copyright infringement. They aren't two different or conflicting things; when you commit electronic theft via reproduction and distribution through physical or digital means, you violate criminal infringement laws.
And the people that click "buy" are buying a product. It's their copy and it belongs to them.
As for using a "free service", any sort of free service isn't a crime, electronic theft however is. A "free service" that enables that kind of theft is criminal as well as seen with The Pirate Bay. That kind of "free service" isn't victimless, and thieves are criminals plain and simple.
And if piracy was based solely on people who wouldn't have bought products in the first place, that'd be a convenient excuse. It isn't however.
We can't approach the ESA and say "Hey, this guy on MMORPG.com wouldn't have bought it anyway. And you knowwhat? I believe him."
They're more inclined to believe the BSA's studies of piracy rates around the world, what happens when they're up, what happens when they're down, and what happens when they're going either way. It's based on that do these organizations get their fuel to cite revenues losses. It's plain FACTUAL that piracy equates to revenue losses. And no honest person that pirates can say they've never pirated something they wanted to buy but pirated instead.
As for me personally wanting some tens of millions of participants in illegal peer-to-peer file sharing to become criminals, of course not.
I won't ignore the realities of the law though and how effectual these large IP related organizations are becoming. What I want is for them to accomplish what they have to as quick as possible without the collateral damage of say, local law enforcement investigating piracy on behalf of the MPAA/RIAA/ESA, or our country resorting to internet censorship the way yours has when it came to The Pirate Bay.
What won't happen is these companies giving up the fight. They've already kindly asked for years that you stop pirating. Napster.com and BitTorrent.com are facilitators of legal content avenues now. So the excuse of the recording industry and hollywood not paying attention to what you want doesn't work, because what you want is free crap without consequence. I don't blame 'em for stopping the chase of any 'model' and instead breaking the volume dial in pursuing a remedy.
Because I care about what collateral damage can occur though; mainly any posturing in net neutrality and censorship, I hope for a swift end to the rampant piracy going about. I'm glad they're targeting the big public trackers, because that seems like a quick avenue to take a lot of wind out of the anti-piracy movement's sails when it comes to needing the government.
Quite simply, you have no idea what you're talking about to have accomplished all that you claim you have: http://www.bmi.com/licensing/entry/C1164/pdf533652_1/
BMI and ASCAP similarly cover any other kind of music-related establishment you can think of. Like TV and Radio, they pay their licensing and then they're able to play or have played the millions of songs owned by the publishers that belong to those organizations. So none of the "submit a playlist" stuff; the licensing is blanketed.
And a compulsory license is an exception to copyright laws that allow things like cover albums. So there's no point in arguing the rule against the exception. Once you send the letter of intent, you have permission. Can they disallow you? Probably, but why? You pay royalties; its apart of how they make money, and you're one of thousands that do it; so law of averages there in even being paid attention to.
The important thing though is that you have PERMISSION without receiving a response. So if "he doesn't want you to", he'll have to say it, but whoever he is, he doesn't have to say "you have permission" before you have permission.
And again, more than likely any establishment you saw a DJ; that establishment itself pays either BMI or ASCAP for the license to do so. So no, there's no piracy, unless the venue itself risks itself.
As for "chasing the peanuts", that's precisely my point in saying the venues themselves would more than likely be in trouble, and my wishing that public trackers are taken down on the other point. Just like venues are held responsible for their content, so should these sites. One is lawful, one isn't. There's a difference from The Pirate Bay and last.fm even in the realm of the internet, one is lawful, one isn't.
Cover bands are legal. Even selling covered music recordings are legal and protected by compulsory licenses.
So long as there's no trademark infringements alongside what copyright laws allow, then there's no issue.
People pay for cover bands and know what they're getting into, nothin' wrong with that.
This.
Of course we played covers. We always told the crowd what artist/ album we were covering and said "go out and buy records to support this great artist that we liked enough to include in our show."
We even had a few people covering our songs within the local scene.. I never saw it as anything more than a tribute/ free advertisement.
I can tell you I would have felt really betrayed, however, if I'd seen our fans passing out free ripped copies of our music. The difference in practice is blatantly obvious, which leads me to believe that supporters of piracy have never "created" anything worthwhile in their lives.
By the way, those of you saying "you didn't make it in music because you sucked" ....
I'll admit I was a total hack compared to many of the people I played with. I always knew I'd end up in a straight job. I was lucky enough to write a few decent songs.
I hate piracy because of the people it hurts the most.. the REALLY brilliant artists whose work is a truly valuable commodity.
Edit: typo
deviliscious: (PS. I have been told that when I use scientific language, it does not make me sound more intelligent, it only makes me sound like a jackass. It makes me appear that I am not knowledgable enough in the subject I am discussing to be able to translate it for people outside the field to understand. Some advice you might consider as well)
Is there a hell for pirates??? pirate hell.. where you have to buy everything that you ever downloaded from the internet.
If you watch The Karate Kid backwards it's about this karate champ that just kinda slowly becomes a pussy and ends up moving back to Jersey
No, it is worse.
In pirate hell you are forced to listen to an endless loop tape of Britney Spears, Anita Bryant, Wayne Newton, and Yanni.
deviliscious: (PS. I have been told that when I use scientific language, it does not make me sound more intelligent, it only makes me sound like a jackass. It makes me appear that I am not knowledgable enough in the subject I am discussing to be able to translate it for people outside the field to understand. Some advice you might consider as well)
Fine. You've all convinced me. I now realize that DRM is more important than human life.
So I won't download this song.
BTW, if I have a photographic memory and I thumb through a novel at the bookstore, does that mean that I illegally copied the book to my brain?
Don't know if you've been paying attention but everyone here HATES DRM.
Piracy opened the door for DRM to waltz right through the front door and screw up everything.
deviliscious: (PS. I have been told that when I use scientific language, it does not make me sound more intelligent, it only makes me sound like a jackass. It makes me appear that I am not knowledgable enough in the subject I am discussing to be able to translate it for people outside the field to understand. Some advice you might consider as well)
I'm only interested in piracy being dealt with so that drastic anti-piracy measures won't have to exist. The only way the measures will end is if piracy ends. That of course will never happen, but the landscape can change from the open internet and important technologies, or dwindle to the point of irrelevancy.
Piracy effects a lot of things; reproduced cars for example. Who here cares about that? Probably not a lot of people; but its fought all of the time the same way movies, software and music piracy are fought. I'd love for piracy in our realm of things not to be a big deal; but right now it is so it has to change.
I kind of agree with this. I mean, I wont claim that i am innocent with piracy. It sounds bad but it's pretty convenient - to be honest. And it's something im sure people wish to never go away. But of course it's just plain wrong so it should be eliminated (kind of hard though hehe). I guess it should also start with people purchasing these media, they should stop redistributing it. I know there are hackers who hack softwares, but there are also people who are a bit too generous to give away what they've purchased to everyone Ü
Just thought i throw this out there: http://torrentfreak.com/artists-abused-in-pirate-bay-trial-strike-back-090602/
It's not the ones making the music that is losing money to piracy, it's the distributors, the record companies.
No. Artists lose money as well, since they're due to earn a certain amount of dollars and cents per unit sold. Naturally, they're due to lose a certain amount of dollars and cents per unit not sold.
That link you showed isn't testament to anything different. I'm not sure what the article's "strike back" sentiment was supposed to mean; it's the goal of organizations like the RIAA for those kinds of sites to engage in lawful activity.
So long as that group owned their own publishing rights for what they put out, well what's the big deal? If they pirated their own work, then that's between them and whoever owns their publishing rights, and ofcourse the lawyers between them.
Sorry but you are borderline psychotic and have no clue what freedom of information is or what they want control of.. LOL
All kidding aside,
Peter Porker
Piracy may be bad but claiming that it hurts the economy is ridiculous. What do you think happens to the money saved by not buying a DVD or CD? It doesn't vanish into the ether, it gets spent elsewhere, therefore no difference to the economy at all.
I've heard lots of arguments from the media companies, all of them scaremongering hogwash. If they didn't churn out so much junk and have such stupid restrictions on what we can do with what we've paid for, they wouldn't be in this mess now.
I'd like to see a try before you buy model of some sort but the media companies would never go for that. They know 99.9% of what they churn out would never sell if people could try it first.