Copyright Bill Makes It Easier to Target Illegal Filesharing

TXgolfer said:
Meh, starting to get boring.....(starting???)......Simple matter of right and wrong here. It is wrong to use a product or service without permission.....Period.

I argue the NET Act....you argue the older law....oh well. Right now the law says those Westboro idiots have the right to taunt funerals too. The law isn't perfect either way.

Wrong is wrong and Piracy is illegal. Those are undisputed facts.
Click to expand...

Well, US Pirate Party disagrees with you.
http://www.pirate-party.us/page.php?8
 
Jiro said:
I suppose this is where we agree to disagree :)
Click to expand...


That was clear pages ago. You cling to LaMacchia.....and as I have posted I cling to.....

The court's dismissal of United States v. LaMacchia suggested that then-existing criminal law simply did not apply to non-commercial infringements (a state of affairs which became known as the "LaMacchia Loophole"). The court suggested that Congress could act to make some non-commercial infringements a crime, and Congress acted on that suggestion in the NET Act.
Click to expand...

and my belief that taking or using something without permission is wrong and that the cost of a product doesn't justify doing wrong.

I also believe 2 wrongs do not make a right.

We disagree......oh well,,,,moving on.....nothing to see here.
 
TXgolfer said:
That was clear pages ago. You cling to LaMacchia.....and as I have posted I cling to.....



and my belief that taking or using something without permission is wrong and that the cost of a product doesn't justify doing wrong.

I also believe 2 wrongs do not make a right.

We disagree......oh well,,,,moving on.....nothing to see here.
Click to expand...

You forgot one more thing - RIAA/MPAA is now embracing it. It has become more flexible in licensing terms and it has abandoned the "content protection" practice.

What's happening here is - I cling onto modern concept. RIAA/MPAA and you cling on outdated, erroneous concept.
 
Jiro said:
You forgot one more thing - RIAA/MPAA is now embracing it. It has become more flexible in licensing terms and it has abandoned the "content protection" practice.

What's happening here is - I cling onto modern concept. RIAA/MPAA and you cling on outdated, erroneous concept.
Click to expand...

Ah.....talk about erroneous. RIAA/MPAA may be becoming more flexible and they may see a need to shift their business model. That is there business and if they CHOOSE not to protect content.....good for them. That in no way changes the fact that using protected content without permission is wrong. Unprotected content has never been a point of contention... I said before share away.....

The only point of contention is protected content.......
 
TXgolfer said:
Ah.....talk about erroneous. RIAA/MPAA may be becoming more flexible and they may see a need to shift their business model. That is there business and if they CHOOSE not to protect content.....good for them. That in no way changes the fact that using protected content without permission is wrong. Unprotected content has never been a point of contention... I said before share away.....

The only point of contention is protected content.......
Click to expand...

nope. the contention is - profiting on original author's protected content.

and - http://www.alldeaf.com/computers-el...target-illegal-filesharing-2.html#post1595533

you basically agreed that piracy is more of moral issue... not right-wrong in a criminal sense.
 
and plagiarizing and capitalizing
 
Jiro said:
nope. the contention is - profiting on original author's protected content.

and - http://www.alldeaf.com/computers-el...target-illegal-filesharing-2.html#post1595533

you basically agreed that piracy is more of moral issue... not right-wrong in a criminal sense.
Click to expand...


Moral issues can be legal issues as well. Perhaps your point of contention is profit. Mine has always been using something without permission....period.

If a person allows Neighbor A to use his lawnmower but says I don't want anyone else using it......Neighbor A shouldn't loan the mower to neighbor B. To do so would be wrong .......

Simple in my world.....If you don't agree fine....move on. Just don't ask to borrow my mower.
 
TXgolfer said:
Moral issues can be legal issues as well. Perhaps your point of contention is profit. Mine has always been using something without permission....period.

If a person allows Neighbor A to use his lawnmower but says I don't want anyone else using it......Neighbor A shouldn't loan the mower to neighbor B. To do so would be wrong .......

Simple in my world.....If you don't agree fine....move on. Just don't ask to borrow my mower.
Click to expand...

Alright, this is kinda getting into personal beliefs now. Don't think anyone can tell someone to change their moral beliefs because.. it's almost like asking someone to believe in god or not or don't sin, commit adultery etc because the other believes in it.

Guess we can leave it at that? :hmm:
 
naisho said:
Alright, this is kinda getting into personal beliefs now. Don't think anyone can tell someone to change their moral beliefs because.. it's almost like asking someone to believe in god or not or don't sin, commit adultery etc because the other believes in it.

Guess we can leave it at that? :hmm:
Click to expand...

Perhaps you missed my oh well as well....
 
Funny how some people think.

It's bad for a music company or even a small band to make money legally by selling their music for downloading and licensing because they're "grubby" with money.

But it's good for piracy to take away profits from a company or a small band who made those music in the first place by pirating their music.

See the disconnect folks?

Quite a disturbing revelation.
 
TXgolfer said:
Moral issues can be legal issues as well. Perhaps your point of contention is profit. Mine has always been using something without permission....period.

If a person allows Neighbor A to use his lawnmower but says I don't want anyone else using it......Neighbor A shouldn't loan the mower to neighbor B. To do so would be wrong .......

Simple in my world.....If you don't agree fine....move on. Just don't ask to borrow my mower.
Click to expand...

simple - the author is free to use "Cease and Desist" order. Point is....

1. Many original authors support P2P concept (as I have shown an article to you already). Why? it promotes popularity. Popularity means $$$$. How? The people will buy concert tickets. and they will pay for songs from iTunes.

2. RIAA/MPAA's defense was loss of corporate profit due to piracy.. which they later admitted that it wasn't due to piracy.

3. Notice that it's the RIAA/MPAA acting on themselves to defend their corporate profits... they are not acting on authors' behalf to protect their copyrighted contents otherwise... why would a group of authors want to sue RIAA/MPAA to collect their share from lawsuit settlements? :hmm:
 
And.......If a person sells his mower to neighbor A on the condition that he not loan the mower to someone else.......And neighbor A agrees to the condition of the purchase. He should not lend the mower to neighbor B......Again that would be wrong.

But that is just the way I see things.....others don't have to agree.
 
kokonut said:
Funny how some people think.

It's bad for a music company or even a small band to make money legally by selling their music for downloading and licensing because they're "grubby" with money.

But it's good for piracy to take away profits from a company or a small band who made those music in the first place by pirating their music.
Click to expand...
where? I don't see how. they make far more on public appearances and concerts than selling CD albums.

http://www.alldeaf.com/computers-el...-psa-watch-your-torrenting-4.html#post1594285

Bad for RIAA, Good for small band.

kokonut said:
See the disconnect folks?

Quite a disturbing revelation.
Click to expand...

the disconnect? Yep RIAA/MPAA finally realized their disconnection. Now they're connecting back to reality.
 
Jiro said:
simple - the author is free to use "Cease and Desist" order. Point is....

1. Many original authors support P2P concept (as I have shown an article to you already). Why? it promotes popularity. Popularity means $$$$. How? The people will buy concert tickets. and they will pay for songs from iTunes.

2. RIAA/MPAA's defense was loss of corporate profit due to piracy.. which they later admitted that it wasn't due to piracy.

3. Notice that it's the RIAA/MPAA acting on themselves to defend their corporate profits... they are not acting on authors' behalf to protect their copyrighted contents otherwise... why would a group of authors want to sue RIAA/MPAA to collect their share from lawsuit settlements? :hmm:
Click to expand...

This has nothing to do with what I am talking about......No problems with p2p at all.....
 
Back
Top