peepnklown
Frankernaut
- Joined
- Jan 21, 2009
- Messages
- 607
- Reaction score
- 177
- Location
- California
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Libertarian
Taking a CD from a store shelf is quite different from downloading a copy of a copy, etc off the Internet. If I am downloading a song it’s not like I walked into Walmart and took the CD off the shelf nor did I ‘hack’ a site like iTunes and take the music iTunes has for sale. The music online is made available to the user if they want it. I’m not stealing when I make a copy of a CD I bought for a friend and they are not stealing when they copy their copy and give it to another friend, etc.TOJ said:If you do it you are a thief.
Taking a CD from a store shelf is quite different from downloading a copy of a copy, etc off the Internet. If I am downloading a song it’s not like I walked into Walmart and took the CD off the shelf nor did I ‘hack’ a site like iTunes and take the music iTunes has for sale. The music online is made available to the user if they want it. I’m not stealing when I make a copy of a CD I bought for a friend and they are not stealing when they copy their copy and give it to another friend, etc.
If the copyright holder did not give permission, it is no different. You are taking for yourself something to which you have no right.Taking a CD from a store shelf is quite different from downloading a copy of a copy, etc off the Internet. If I am downloading a song it’s not like I walked into Walmart and took the CD off the shelf nor did I ‘hack’ a site like iTunes and take the music iTunes has for sale. The music online is made available to the user if they want it. I’m not stealing when I make a copy of a CD I bought for a friend and they are not stealing when they copy their copy and give it to another friend, etc.
If the copyright holder did not give permission, it is no different. You are taking for yourself something to which you have no right.
A thief is a thief no matter what was stolen or how it was stolen.
So, even if the concepts are different and the law recognizes them as different, they are still the same. Got it..
Try that in a court, you'd be laughed out and also run the rish of being counter-sued for slander
I have paid for and downloaded many things. Most downloading is done legally.
Most downloading is done legally.
The law recognizes what differently? Well it could be because there's nowhere near enough laws targeting illegal downloading yet seeing as how well, walking into Wal-Mart and stealing **** has been around since forever. And pirating has only been around seriously for 15 years. It's a matter of there not being enough laws for one and the other having been recognized since well the dawn of civilization.
If the copyright holder did not give permission, it is no different. You are taking for yourself something to which you have no right.
its not too difficult at all considering many people have static IP addresses and ISP's are more than willing to give out such information due to an investigation, warrant, or supoena. Usually they go after people who share intellectual prop rather than the people who d/load it.The problem is that it is quite easy to catch and show that someone stole something from Walmart while it is pretty much impossible to catch someone downloading things "illegally" unless they admit to it. First you have to link an IP address with illegal content. Then you have to show that the given IP address belongs to a certain computer. Then you have to show that the person you are accusing was the one that actually downloaded it on that computer. So in terms of practicality, it isn't really feasible (aside from very highly regulated networks such as college campuses or businesses, who knows who is in exactly what room and the IP address for every computer on their property).
it is a very difficult problem to tackle. Past solutions have been fairly unsuccessful. However, cd-keys, online accounts, and other such things have been effective at the expense of a hassle ofr the user.The only "solution" (if you could really call it that) is bandwidth capping, which is incredibly draconian given the fact that it can't discriminate between legal and illegal downloading/uploading. It's about on par with the current state of DRM with computer games. This is why we are seeing a shift towards ISP's being the new front on this ongoing battle.
this is outlined under something called "fair use". Wiki has a decent page on it.What about making a copy of a CD and giving it to a friend? What about lending your CD to a friend? What about recording movies off television so that you don't have to buy the DVD's? To what extent is that acceptable? Where is this line you are drawing, and how exactly is it not arbitrary?
its not too difficult at all considering many people have static IP addresses and ISP's are more than willing to give out such information.
The RIAA tried that already, look at the number of underage/computer-less, computer-less, and dead people they fingered.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?