Computer games industry threat to downloaders: 'pay up or we'll sue', page 3
Pages: <<  1    2    3    4    5    6  >>
ATS Members have flagged this thread 5 times


reply posted on 21-8-2008 @ 01:34 AM by Orion Crystal Ice
Understood, thanks for the follow up...

I agree completely about the money thing as you said (as I said too). I'm most concerned about putting out a quality product soundwise, look-wise, touring, etc. I would be OK with putting out a professional product, making enough so the record company breaks even and I don't owe. Why not? I don't live in a fantasy world. I know I gotta work for my money. Being able to utilize some of my work skills to create professional art, and being able to see different parts of the country and the world and bring my music to people that personally is a huge huge reward as it is. Profit that goes in my pocket from that afterwards is just a big blessing, to me. Basically, I feel like the certain amount of the population that PREFERS the digital only thing is trying to push it without mercy on everybody despite what THEY would prefer. A lot of money is lost when it comes to music now, but for me the biggest harm is going to come to the artist and what the artist will be able to do. Musical communism, like I said, and I definitely don't support that.

The difference in the live setting you mention might have to do with what I play (heavy metal of a type which is basically considered VERY European!). For those of us in a rock or heavy rock scene, - no covers - just about every club I've been to here, if you don't draw a huuuuuge amount, you get no cut at all. SOME promoters will be good enough to you to help with your gas a percentage, usually per gallon/mile, which is always helpful, but otherwise it's rare. Completely different than it is most of where you would go in Europe and select places in other continents..

[edit on 21-8-2008 by Orion Crystal Ice]


reply posted on 21-8-2008 @ 05:18 AM by spacebot
I am going to say something that will upset many.

While I'm not advocating any of the following as methods or as a philosophy I want to put this right in front of you.

If computer gaming companies cease to exist the world will not stop playing games. Gaming development will not stop. Unless some bigger authority could confiscate all the PCs of every individual on this planet, people will still develop games and play them.

If music companies cease to exist, the world is still going to listen to music. People will still make music. Unless they remove all the cells right out from our brain that respond to music and are responsible for its creation.

Internet or anything similar with that concept is responsible for a revolution, every day a larger extend of peoples intercommunication and distribution of data content and ideas is happening.

If a similar concept would exist BEFORE the very first music corporation appeared then we wouldnt see any Music corporations evolving. Money for rights would go directly to the artists. Same goes with the gaming companies.

Companies in general play the role of the medium, what happens when a society culturaly and technologically evolves beyond that? Will we stop it or adapt to a newer model?
Why does it always has to be that new trends are always demanded and implemented by the industry corporations? Are we handicapped or mentally retarded? Do multibillion corporations really give a public service? We are the creators and the artists, we can be our own distributors and mediums for anything.

Think about it.

Sometime in the not so distant future, corporations have to either destroy the internet or remove any free aspect of its nature in order for them to survive. That will be a major hindering of our own cultural and technological evolution.

Things can go the way WE demand them to go, with our own efforts of creativity and resourcefulness. Even if internet has to disappear the idea will still stay alive and another similar concept will re-emerge.

[edit for typos]

[edit on 21-8-2008 by spacebot]


reply posted on 21-8-2008 @ 05:56 AM by wolfmanjack
Originally posted by Now_Then
What about using your neighbours WiFi??

I know a number of people who pay for their own net connection - but when they feel like DL'ing something they shouldn't they simply hop on to an open wireless connection, most of them live in student town so the opportunities are there.

Ah ha you say, turn on the protection! fair point, an unguarded WiFi is simply an invitation, but WEP and WPA is fairly easy to crack with a little dedication, word to the wise is Temporal Key Integrity Protocol that's a pain in the posterior


LOL WEP etc can be cracked in less then 10 min if you know what your doing. add 10-20 min to that if your a total idiot reading how to do it step by step.

In a lot of built up citys you can usual have your pick from 10-30 open WiFi sources. Apartment buildings are a given for easy free access..

Granted.. If you turn the encryption on 99% of the time people just are not going to bother and will take another access point.

Don't get me started on how fast the gooberment can crack Wifi and how often they do it.

Originally posted by alundaio
Theft is the illegal taking of another person's property without that person's freely-given consent. If you download someone else's copyrighted work without consent, it is stealing. In modern times, somthing doesn't even have to say it's copyrighted anymore and it holds the copyright of the creator. Doesn't anyone read or learn anymore? I'm baffled at some of the posters on this sight.


That depends on who's definition of Fair use your using..

As for Copyrighted etc...... I think they loose any copyright as soon as they release it out into the public. Mind you that doesn't give anyone the right to SELL the product...... But then again 99% of the people who do filesharing are not selling it.

Way i see it is if i bought something i should be able to copy it and give a copy of it to whoever i want. I bought it.... Why shouldn't i be able to do what i want with it? Ohhhhh just because you or someone else doesn't like me doing it?

Its not theft unless your SELLING IT!!!! By copying it or giving copys to someone you and that person are not stealing a damn thing. IF you SELL it though you are.

(Just my 2 cents on it.. I know a lot of people here won't agree but mehh its how i feel)





[edit on 21-8-2008 by wolfmanjack]


reply posted on 21-8-2008 @ 09:02 AM by Now_Then
reply to post by Lethil


But you in no way invited that data to reside on your system and share it's self with other systems.

Sounds like you may have picked a bit of a virus!


reply posted on 21-8-2008 @ 09:04 AM by Orion Crystal Ice

If computer gaming companies cease to exist the world will not stop playing games. Gaming development will not stop. Unless some bigger authority could confiscate all the PCs of every individual on this planet, people will still develop games and play them.

If music companies cease to exist, the world is still going to listen to music. People will still make music. Unless they remove all the cells right out from our brain that respond to music and are responsible for its creation.


That's very true. A point I'm trying to make regarding this is somewhere along the line money is going to come into play, someone somewhere will want to do something with development of said media that will involve money changing hands and something resembling a 'company' will be born at that moment. It doesn't have to revolve around sales of said product, at least not at first, but if money is going into the project, where is the money coming from after a certain threshold? As I've said, I don't believe the system is in error, but rather the administrators of the system. Could I make a record now? Theoretically, but it would not be half as good, in many ways, as what *I aspire to make in my particular field*, music style, etc, in terms of sound, production, look. I could barely afford such things even in the minor leagues any way you look at it, just the same as a lot of people can't even afford all the dough for that big screen plasma TV all at once, much less something like a new or used car, etc. The unfortunate reality is that until each developer and musician gets absolute TOP quality software and equipment for both producing the material itself and creating the packaging - for free or super super cheap - the supply of those products depend, like tons of other expensive things in the world, on loans. People seem to be OK with the fact that all other loans exist, except when they have trouble paying their credit cards, but they knew what they were getting into there. I do not feel it's fair that the MS is tossing the baby out with the bathwater when it comes to music, especially in the age of the WWW. Instead of turning things around and voting with your pocketbook where it counts, we have either downloaded all the music for free, or continued steadfast to suckle from the teat of what the MS says we should listen to. Go to the BTS forum and see how many lists and such there when it comes to games and music are completely bought hook line and sinker off what the mass media says to like. It's as if the vastness of the WWW has not changed anything in anyone. But now it's people's own fault, there's no more excuse, and I just don't want to pay the price of not having all my options available because people would rather ignorantly say all record companies must be one and the same and abolish them instead of just being wise. Additionally, if there were no *big* record companies and *big* developers and so on - to mark a parallel to what you said - people would still follow what other people do blindly...i.e..peer pressure. Somebody somewhere would still start some huge trend that take away a huge portion of the populace - it's the nature of the herd, and a lot of times it starts from the ground up just as much as it does from the MSM down. I don't see why I should feel the effects of that, in terms of abolishing a company I may want to work with, when I don't do it and neither does most of the audience I would be promoting my music to.

[edit on 21-8-2008 by Orion Crystal Ice]


reply posted on 21-8-2008 @ 10:56 AM by sir_chancealot
Originally posted by alundaio
Theft is the illegal taking of another person's property without that person's freely-given consent. If you download someone else's copyrighted work without consent, it is stealing. ...


As I said, those that call it theft are IGNORANT. You, sir, are IGNORANT of
what the crime of theft entails. Here it is in my jurisdiction.

From www.in.gov...

IC 35-43-4-1
Definitions
Sec. 1. (a) As used in this chapter, "exert control over property" means to obtain, take, carry, drive, lead away, conceal, abandon, sell, convey, encumber, or possess property, or to secure, transfer, or extend a right to property.
(b) Under this chapter, a person's control over property of another person is "unauthorized" if it is exerted:
(1) without the other person's consent;
(2) in a manner or to an extent other than that to which the other person has consented;
(3) by transferring or encumbering other property while failing to disclose a lien, adverse claim, or other legal impediment to the enjoyment of that other property;
(4) by creating or confirming a false impression in the other person;
(5) by failing to correct a false impression that the person knows is influencing the other person, if the person stands in a relationship of special trust to the other person;
(6) by promising performance that the person knows will not be performed;
(7) by expressing an intention to damage the property or impair the rights of any other person; or
(8) by transferring or reproducing:
(A) recorded sounds; or
(B) a live performance;
without consent of the owner of the master recording or the live performance, with intent to distribute the reproductions for a profit.
(c) As used in this chapter, "receiving" means acquiring possession or control of or title to property, or lending on the security of property.
As added by Acts 1976, P.L.148, SEC.3. Amended by Acts 1977, P.L.340, SEC.44; Acts 1979, P.L.300, SEC.1; P.L.180-1991, SEC.7.

IC 35-43-4-2
Theft; receiving stolen property
Sec. 2. (a) A person who knowingly or intentionally exerts unauthorized control over property of another person, with intent to deprive the other person of any part of its value or use, commits theft, a Class D felony. However, the offense is a Class C felony if the fair market value of the property is at least one hundred thousand dollars ($100,000).
(b) A person who knowingly or intentionally receives, retains, or disposes of the property of another person that has been the subject of theft commits receiving stolen property, a Class D felony. However, the offense is a Class C felony if the fair market value of the property is at least one hundred thousand dollars ($100,000).

It even includes a definition for copying music. To be considered theft (in Indiana), IT HAS TO BE FOR PROFIT! Therefore, copying a cd to mp3 and giving to your buddy IS NOT THEFT. Downloading it from the internet IS NOT THEFT. File sharing IS NOT THEFT.

Whether it is another crime or not is a different debate, but it is NOT theft

Notice the two parts of theft (and these are usually the same across the United States, perhaps just worded differently). There must be 1) Taking or exerting control over someone else's property, and 2) It must be to deprive them of the use or value of the property.

See, that's where the second part gets these "Downloading movies/music is theft" proponents. If someone downloads an unauthorized movie, it could logically be argued that they have taken control over someone else's property (it cannot be argued LEGALLY, however). It can be NEITHER LOGICALLY NOR LEGALLY SAID TO DEPRIVE THEM OF IT'S VALUE. The person doing the "taking" may not have ever bought the album/movie after they see/hear what crap it is. They may have just heard about a band, and wanted to see what they were like. They may be too damn cheap to acquire the music if they had to pay for it.

Can you argue that by downloading music/movies, that the entire music industry is hurt. But again, you would be ignorant. Every scientific (i.e., not paid for by the RIAA) study done on the matter shows that when file sharing is rampant, THE MUSIC COMPANIES MAKE MORE MONEY. Kind of counter-intuitive I know, but there it is.

Again kids, do we now see why, despite legality or illegality, despite what other things you can call it, IT IS NOT "THEFT"!

The reason they (RIAA, music shills, etc.) want you to associate downloading movies with THEFT, is because they want the visceral (i.e. emotional) response to taking music to be the same as theft of some object.

Besides, today, my great, great, great, great, great grandchildren will be dead and buried before any song on the chart now will be in the public domain. In the beginning, the statute of limitations on this kind of thing was 17 years.

Let me put it another way. If our "intellectual property" laws had been in effect during the time of Beethoven and Mozart, they'd just now be coming into the public domain. Think about that.
Pages: <<  1    2    3    4    5    6  >>    ^^TOP^^




Newest topics getting replies, in real-time:

Anonymous show your face!
  Rant, Posted 16 hours ago, 68 replies
Official Maine Caucus Results Thread!!
  2012 US Elections, Posted 6 hours ago, 56 replies