- Joined
- Mar 21, 2005
- Messages
- 25,893
- Reaction score
- 12,484
- Location
- New York, NY
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Slightly Conservative
I mean, what kind of fascist crap is that? If I buy a CD, I am going to use it in any device I have, and that should be my right as a consumer. With this law, you don't own the CD, you are renting it, and rental comes with rules. That is what DMR essentially is becoming in the modern world.
The funny thing is, these kinds of draconian laws will just push more people to download illegally.
You do know you never owned the music that you purchased, right? It's merely a license to listen on the format provided. I prefer "fair use" rights that provide more for me, but we only own the physical copy that we originally purchase.
I had been playing a "pirated" copy of Dragon Age - Origins all weekend. I went out and bought it yesterday (despite EA being the middleman as publisher, Bioware deserves my money and encouragement to continue to put out great games such as this).
I have no qualms about "test driving" games, there are many I play a few hours and never return to, not something that would warrant a $50 or so expenditure.
Once upon a time I used to go to blockbuster frequently to rent games to test out, and if i enjoyed the game I would then purchase it. This option is not available for PC games though, which makes no sense since many of the same games are now available on both console and PC. We have different rules for essentially the same product.
Had I not had the opportunity to test drive games beforehand, I would have bought Cities XL at face value, and had been PISSED off at the choice. I also would not have had the money to buy Dragon Age since it would have gone towards a crappy game with underhanded marketing tactics instead of going in support of a game developer that has yet again put out a product very deserving of my money, and my support.
I also have quite a few games that I have purchased that had I not been exposed to them via illegitimate sources, I would have never thought to purchase in the first place. "Piracy" in these instances has resulted in free marketing of their product, and generated sales that would have not occurred otherwise.
Anyhow, time to go play Dragon Age, despite the only reason that I cracked the seal on the box was to take a peek at the game manual, and the DVD's with the data on them will remain untouched :2razz:
This is also a very good point. Why would someone pay $.99 cents for a ridiculously DRM'd song when they could get an unencumbered version for free? If you buy a movie on DVD, there are usually 10 minutes of unskippable ****tastic previews that you have to sit through. If you torrent it, you can just cut right to the movie in VLC media player. I take DVDs that I own and rip them for myself just to avoid that bull****.
When the "finished product" that the studios are offering is actually less valuable than the product available elsewhere, you're going to see people who would normally be glad to buy the product legitimately turn to the black market instead.
What are the economics behind the music industry?
I understand producers not being happy if their products are copied and sold. But are we being fleeced for our music? How much do artists make and how much goes directly to costs out of the income?
The laws that the corporate powers are pushing go above and beyond simple ownership rights. Right now in Canada, the anti-piracy law being discussed in parliament - which, by the way, most Canadians oppose but the ruling party is ignoring us and listening to corporations instead - makes it illegal to jail break devices or rip from one format to another.
In other words, if I buy a music CD, it would be a punishable offense to rip that music for use in my ipod, even though I acquired the CD legally. They would instead want me to buy yet another version, the mp3 version, from an online store.
I mean, what kind of fascist crap is that? If I buy a CD, I am going to use it in any device I have, and that should be my right as a consumer. With this law, you don't own the CD, you are renting it, and rental comes with rules. That is what DMR essentially is becoming in the modern world.
The funny thing is, these kinds of draconian laws will just push more people to download illegally. Why would I go out and buy a CD if I can't own it or use it how I want like I would any of my own property? I mean, as long as I'm not sending copies to my friends, why should my activities be illegal? This has HUGE implications for how schools use content, other artists (like DJs), etc.
The level of corporate control is just too much right now. It needs to be shut down with proper democratic controls that favor MODERATE and reasonable consumer laws.
But no... instead we are deferring to crime and punishment, as usual. Create more crimes, and create more punishments. Make the jails bigger. Take away freedoms from more people for things that shouldn't be crimes in the first place.
This is also a very good point. Why would someone pay $.99 cents for a ridiculously DRM'd song when they could get an unencumbered version for free? If you buy a movie on DVD, there are usually 10 minutes of unskippable ****tastic previews that you have to sit through. If you torrent it, you can just cut right to the movie in VLC media player. I take DVDs that I own and rip them for myself just to avoid that bull****.
When the "finished product" that the studios are offering is actually less valuable than the product available elsewhere, you're going to see people who would normally be glad to buy the product legitimately turn to the black market instead.
I still don't understand how having a problem with the way the industry functions translates into it being "ok" for someone to just take what they want without paying for it.
The problem *I* have with the industries is that they screw the artists out of *their* money. . . I have no problem support artists that I favor like Peter Steele (RIP), Trent Reznor, Rasputina and Henry Rollins - If I want their *items* I buy it from as close to source as possible if it's beyond my downloads.
I'd rather pay money to own something in hopes that their earned and entitled meager cut gets to *them* - as they are due - rather than rob them of my :twocents: that they will ultimately get in order to screw over their production company.
Not all artists deal with devils in the industry - does anyone care when it comes to that? Do you support Independent artists who avoid the industry brouhaha purely on principle? Do you go out of your way to directly contribute to all venues that aren't fleecing or skimming off the top in effort to stand up against the industry itself?
I still don't understand how having a problem with the way the industry functions translates into it being "ok" for someone to just take what they want without paying for it.
The problem *I* have with the industries is that they screw the artists out of *their* money. . . I have no problem support artists that I favor like Peter Steele (RIP), Trent Reznor, Rasputina and Henry Rollins - If I want their *items* I buy it from as close to source as possible if it's beyond my downloads.
I'd rather pay money to own something in hopes that their earned and entitled meager cut gets to *them* - as they are due - rather than rob them of my :twocents: that they will ultimately get in order to screw over their production company.
Not all artists deal with devils in the industry - does anyone care when it comes to that? Do you support Independent artists who avoid the industry brouhaha purely on principle? Do you go out of your way to directly contribute to all venues that aren't fleecing or skimming off the top in effort to stand up against the industry itself?
Just because you feel *they're* screwing you doesn't mean that the artist you *do* like should be screwed *by* you in your process of throwing a entertainment hissy fit.
The law says it is a violation to make unauthorized copies of material available under copyright. This is the foundation on which creative people make a living.
What I read here is a lot of self serving justifications for violations of that law and a suggestion that we premise an honor system based on people who entered the system through such violations of the law. After all, we can trust them of all people!
What we have here is another example of the “something for nothing” crowd. We see it in the Tea Party followers who tell us they want an end to deficit spending but won't tolerate any discussion that taxes be raised or Medicare or Social Security or any other program that serves them be cut. We see it with Republicans demanding that all economic stimulus spending be paid for, even unemployment insurance extensions, but refuse to pay for Bush tax extenders. We see it in the demands by a Louisiana governor for unabated Gulf oil exploration even as he's demanding that the oil spill containment be stepped up. These people are living in Bizarro World.
Rudy Giuliani prosecuted minor crime infractions and changed the culture in NYC. I say it's time to prosecute all copyright unauthorized copying violations, every last one. It wouldn't trouble me one bit to see many here owing thousands to the music, movie, video game and book industries.
BTW, copyright law is too complicated and it, too, exists in Bizarro World. I offer as evidence the excellent film: Sita Sings The Blues. Now here's a film where the rights to make copies has been freely given away. Take the time to download the extras (available on the DVD image) and listen to Nina Paley describe her ordeals with archaic copyright law. It's an eye opener. I don't doubt that some people would want to use this condition as yet another justification for their violations but of course that's just more self serving dribble. Consider this, Nina Paley came to terms with copyright law difficult as it was.
It's funny how people like you are more than willing to toss someone under the bus for copyright infringement.
Social justice my ass.
You're authoritarians to the core. :lol:
Darn people thinking laws mean something.
So you're cool with gay marriage not being legal right?
It is the law after all.:roll:
Gay marriage and stealing are not quite the same thing. Nice try though.
I suppose you support bootlegging being legal, right?
The law says it is a violation to make unauthorized copies of material available under copyright. This is the foundation on which creative people make a living.
What I read here is a lot of self serving justifications for violations of that law and a suggestion that we premise an honor system based on people who entered the system through such violations of the law. After all, we can trust them of all people!
What we have here is another example of the “something for nothing” crowd. We see it in the Tea Party followers who tell us they want an end to deficit spending but won't tolerate any discussion that taxes be raised or Medicare or Social Security or any other program that serves them be cut. We see it with Republicans demanding that all economic stimulus spending be paid for, even unemployment insurance extensions, but refuse to pay for Bush tax extenders. We see it in the demands by a Louisiana governor for unabated Gulf oil exploration even as he's demanding that the oil spill containment be stepped up. These people are living in Bizarro World.
Rudy Giuliani prosecuted minor crime infractions and changed the culture in NYC. I say it's time to prosecute all copyright unauthorized copying violations, every last one. It wouldn't trouble me one bit to see many here owing thousands to the music, movie, video game and book industries.
BTW, copyright law is too complicated and it, too, exists in Bizarro World. I offer as evidence the excellent film: Sita Sings The Blues. Now here's a film where the rights to make copies has been freely given away. Take the time to download the extras (available on the DVD image) and listen to Nina Paley describe her ordeals with archaic copyright law. It's an eye opener. I don't doubt that some people would want to use this condition as yet another justification for their violations but of course that's just more self serving dribble. Consider this, Nina Paley came to terms with copyright law difficult as it was.
Gay marriage and stealing are not quite the same thing. Nice try though.
Who said anything about stealing?
You said, "Darn people thinking laws mean something."
I sounds like you're more interested in following laws, whether or not, they make sense to follow.
No I don't necessarily support bootlegging, unless the person doing it adds value to it.
I'm not a huge opponent of IP law, but this type of statement just doesn't make any sense. There's a pretty obvious distinction between the duplication of IP and the physical deprivation of a tangible object.
Stealing(which is what piracy is in it's way) is not like gay marriage. For the record though, if some one defrauds the government into giving them a gay marriage in a state where it is not allowed, then yes, they deserve to be prosecuted. Laws are the glue that holds society together. Just because I don't like them is not an excuse to ignore them.
Since we both(sorta) agree on bootlegging, let me ask a couple more questions. If I take a splitter and hook myself up to my neighbors cable and get cable for free(yes, I know this no longer works, but it used to), is that wrong? If a website copy/pastes full articles from other sites without permission and posts them on their website, is that wrong?
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?