It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

IMPORTANT: Changes to NZ copyright laws on Feb 28th

page: 2
11
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 11 2009 @ 03:25 PM
link   
Stealing copyrighted material is stealing. Those who do so are thieves. Thieves are criminals. Seems simple enough. If a person knowingly downloads copyrighted material, they are a thief and a criminal.

I've never seen this as hard to understand. It is not an issue of rights. It is an issue of protecting the artists right to earn a living from criminals who knowingly steal their work.

The solution is quite simple also. People should stop stealing from others. I personally find thieves lower than the belly of a snake.
How anyone got the idea that stealing over the Internet was any different than any other type of stealing boggles the mind. Honest people pay. People who don't pay are not honest and not to be trusted.

It's a shame that ATS allows people to encourage and support criminal activity in their posts here. Demeans all of us by associating with those who steal.

One of you actually rationalized that stealing something you can't afford is OK. Well I can't afford to buy your whole country. Would it be OK if I stole it? Of course not. That is ludicrous to even suggest.

Make your own music. It's easy. Spend most of your life learning to sing and play instruments. Spend years starving, playing for unappreciative people in dive bars that won't even give you a tip. Maybe, just maybe have a hit or two and make a couple of albums.

I've spent more than 20 years in and around the Advertising and Marketing Industry in entertainment. Most Artists never do make any money to speak of. They pay a dear price with their screwed up lives trying to succeed. And then their creepy little Fans steal their work.

I could name a dozen people you would immediately recognize, freinds of mine, who are struggling to survive while playing clubs for pennies. The Royalties keep them afloat and support their families. These are the people you are stealing from.




posted on Feb, 11 2009 @ 03:30 PM
link   
reply to post by Blaine91555
 


This is not just about downloading.

This is the first infringement on internet freedom.

Do you think almost anyone would know about 9/11 being an inside job if the internet did not exist in the manner it does.
Lots and lots of noise about 'internet packages' with preset websites and you pay lots more for free for all. It'd be like having a phone that could only ring the govt, the movie theatres and the news companies. If you wanted to ring your car dealer you paid extra.

That is the fundamental reason why this law needs to be killed.
Next thing will be 'omgz the kiddie porn we need to block stuff'. They'll get it either way, just like drug laws it will fail. It is there to control what you see.



posted on Feb, 11 2009 @ 03:42 PM
link   
Thanks to all who have taken the time to post,

im pleased others consider this a somewhat important issue,


I had a family member who was recently partying with Def Leppard,
she asked them what they thought about people downloading their music...

their ideas were,

"...Nah we're all for that! You see, downloading has brought our music to a whole new generation of audiance, that would have otherwise never known us, a lot of these people then come to concerts, and buy t-shirts and posters..."

"... over half the people in our concerts werent even alive when we were big..."

of course those guys cant speak on behalf of a whole industry, but they were very pleased to think that a new generation of fans are enjoying their work...


Personally.

i believe any piracey taking place in NZ (population 4m) would be relativaly inconsequential to the overall scheme, and i am a firm believer that most of the copyrighted material that is being downloaded, would never have been purchased by those downloading it anyway... like someone above me mentioned, when we start protecting huge companies, minute and in most cases, non existant profits you really have to begin to wonder why?



posted on Feb, 11 2009 @ 04:30 PM
link   
reply to post by GhostR1der
 


Bull. You just don't want to pay for your music. I'm not buying it and your last post was in fact a criminal action called "Conspiracy" in my humble opinion.

I'm not a kid blowing hot air about my third cousins sister met the Stones and knows for a fact......

I earn every penny of my income from my Marketing work for entertainment. Most entertainers get a few years to earn their entire lives wages. Those Royalties you are cheating them out of, support them in many cases. The whole world does not revolve around what a bunch of bankrupt kids listen too.

If you want the music, earn the money and buy it. It is so cheap to download legally that only children would even need to steal it. What are you going to do with thousands of stolen songs you will never listen too anyway?

Best thing for this is that some are caught and made an example of. Like I said a thief is a thief.



posted on Feb, 11 2009 @ 05:02 PM
link   
reply to posts by Blaine91555
 


Hi Blaine, im pleased youre here, its always better to have an open discussion with more than one opinion being presented.

correct me if i am wrong but i was under the impression that F-all from the sales of DVD's or Music CD's actually goes to the artist (about 2%),
if they were receiving a heftier cut of the loot from sales, i would lean more towards your perspective myself,

however as long as the big chunk of change is going elsewherei dont think its the artist being ripped off by the consumer, but the artist being ripped off by the big corps. Most artists are a slave to their label, and have very little say in what goes into their music lyrically and how they present themselves to the public.

big companies are scum, thats something we should all be able to agree on.

sure theft is theft and a thief is a thief...

but the real crime is taking place behind large wooden doors, by groups of fat cat suits, on their puffy leather office chairs, getting paid big bucks to exploit the talents of others...



posted on Feb, 11 2009 @ 05:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by Blaine91555
Stealing copyrighted material is stealing. Those who do so are thieves. Thieves are criminals. Seems simple enough. If a person knowingly downloads copyrighted material, they are a thief and a criminal.

I've never seen this as hard to understand. It is not an issue of rights. It is an issue of protecting the artists right to earn a living from criminals who knowingly steal their work.

The solution is quite simple also. People should stop stealing from others. I personally find thieves lower than the belly of a snake.
How anyone got the idea that stealing over the Internet was any different than any other type of stealing boggles the mind. Honest people pay. People who don't pay are not honest and not to be trusted.

It's a shame that ATS allows people to encourage and support criminal activity in their posts here. Demeans all of us by associating with those who steal.

One of you actually rationalized that stealing something you can't afford is OK. Well I can't afford to buy your whole country. Would it be OK if I stole it? Of course not. That is ludicrous to even suggest.

Make your own music. It's easy. Spend most of your life learning to sing and play instruments. Spend years starving, playing for unappreciative people in dive bars that won't even give you a tip. Maybe, just maybe have a hit or two and make a couple of albums.

I've spent more than 20 years in and around the Advertising and Marketing Industry in entertainment. Most Artists never do make any money to speak of. They pay a dear price with their screwed up lives trying to succeed. And then their creepy little Fans steal their work.

I could name a dozen people you would immediately recognize, freinds of mine, who are struggling to survive while playing clubs for pennies. The Royalties keep them afloat and support their families. These are the people you are stealing from.


You have a good head on your shoulders, there, bud. I respect everything you've said, and fully agree. I do not condone ANYONE illegally downloading music, for any reason. I've been working in the Entertainment industry for a little over 12 years now.

What most people won't even realise is what exactly these artists have to give up to actually achieve such a huge status. Their lives are basically forfeit to their careers! How many of these kids have tried a creative career option as such? NOT MANY (if even any, for that matter). All of your time must be put into the creation/perfection of your craft. I spent 4 years unemployed, only taking in income from my work/touring... In the beginning, it seriously isn't a good choice for anyone, unless they've got the drive to actually put EVERYTHING ELSE in their life on the backburner. I've lost relationships/friendships/jobs ... ALL because I had to turn to my career.

I've since taken my own route, now... Post Audio is my bag now. Still the same sort of deal, but a LOT harder to get into.

BUY YOUR MUSIC.
I, Personally, do download music.
I will admit it.
But not illegally.
Every MP3 on my drive is either made by me, or downloaded for the ridiculously SMALL PRICE OF A DIGITAL DOWNLOAD.

Stop whining Pirates.
You're stealing people's lifes work. Work they did actually put their 'EVERYTHING' into.



posted on Feb, 11 2009 @ 06:19 PM
link   
reply to post by jephers0n
 


being a musician is your decision,
the potential life of destitute, or rockstar fame, is known and calculated at the start of it all (risk vs reward)...

its a dog eat dog world,
and dog mentality says "why pay for something I can get for free?"

or in the case of my firends who have downloaded music, "why pay for a whole CD when its all crap but 2 songs?"

heres one for you,
its must be a hell of lot friendier to the enviroment to download than it is to purchase cds and what not...


[edit on 11/2/2009 by Zeus187]



posted on Feb, 11 2009 @ 06:50 PM
link   
www.legislation.govt.nz/bill/government/2006/0102-3/latest /096be8ed801aae8a.pdf

link to new legislation


[edit on 11/2/2009 by Zeus187]



posted on Feb, 11 2009 @ 07:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by Zeus187
reply to post by jephers0n
 


being a musician is your decision,
the potential life of destitute, or rockstar fame, is known and calculated at the start of it all (risk vs reward)...

its a dog eat dog world,
and dog mentality says "why pay for something I can get for free?"

or in the case of my firends who have downloaded music, "why pay for a whole CD when its all crap but 2 songs?"

heres one for you,
its must be a hell of lot friendier to the enviroment to download than it is to purchase cds and what not...


[edit on 11/2/2009 by Zeus187]


Yes, It is a hell of a lot better for the environment to download -LEGALLY-.
After buying CD's and Vinyl for years upon years, I was ridiculously relieved to be able to purchase songs online, however, doing so also loses me the liner notes, which I happen to like collecting. The liners/sleeves always have some great artwork, in the least, at least in my opinion. It really is a dog eat dog world, but in your analogy, you're being more representative of a thief, or pirates point of view.

Here's one for Yourself: What kind of person doesn't feel good actually supporting an artist they enjoy, and aiding them in progressing their craft, which is, ultimately made for that consumer's enjoyment.


I think your views are very saddening, from how I'm understanding them. I'm sorry.

J

[edit to add]

I forgot to mention, that single mp3's can also be purchased online of your favorite songs, most times. You can always preview the album, or songs on the albums, using the functions most sites allow... usually a 20-30 second clip of the song you're buying, so you can see if you like it...

To put it another way... Picture having worked for a nice regular week, but added a nice 40 hours of overtime in as well. Payday rolls around, and your boss tells you: "Oh, By the way , I feel that it's a dog eat dog world, and I'm pretty hungry, so... I just don't feel like paying you. Thanks, Champ!"

How would you react?
The scale is clearly different, don't even bring that up. I just use this to illustrate a logical point. It's work of another person, being stolen.

Copyrights are there to protect.

[edit on 11-2-2009 by jephers0n]



posted on Feb, 11 2009 @ 07:59 PM
link   
reply to post by jephers0n
 


I agree with what youre saying with respects to the artist,

and you are right to say that my posts here are more in support of the supposed illegal downloaders, i am representing the potential arguments of those who do... your so called "whinging pirates" (not that i noticed any of them here...)


but from where im standing, here in NZ where these seeminly new laws are to be trialed, I am left asking why?

why us in NZ population, a third of L.A...?

why bother spending the millions of dollars tax payers money (possibly more than it is costing the industry?) to police and inforce new legislation?


please dont mis judge my disrespect for big business, government and dud laws as support for "pirates" and do try not to be saddend by my views, for they are mine alone to suffer...



posted on Feb, 12 2009 @ 03:55 AM
link   

Originally posted by Blaine91555
Stealing copyrighted material is stealing. Those who do so are thieves. Thieves are criminals. Seems simple enough. If a person knowingly downloads copyrighted material, they are a thief and a criminal.



There is plenty of content shared across torrent networks that isn't copyrighted. People share things they make themselves, copyright free. The problem is that internet companies cannot tell the difference between legal and illegal traffic unless they view the sum of one individuals traffic. That to me is invasion of privacy.

ISP's should be nothing more than a provider, neutral in regards to the content shared and not be able to be prosecuted for what users share. Yes this leads to sharing of copyrighted content, no that isn't good but the freedom of the internet is more important.

Remember that clamping down on any freedom first requires a small, publicly supported step before you roll out many other limitations. This copyrighted stuff is that first, publicly accepted step.



posted on Feb, 12 2009 @ 04:05 AM
link   


these changes were instigated by our labour government, which i suppose i had slightly more faith in than John Key and his posse,




The law is total farce. It reverses a presumption of innocence because the ISP subscriber may not have been the person infringing copyright. This is in theory a breach of human rights.

Worse still the law does not require evidence of a breach. The threshold is that a person merely needs to be suspected of a breach.

This is a totally Orwellian legislative change.

[edit on 12-2-2009 by sy.gunson]



posted on Feb, 12 2009 @ 04:39 AM
link   
I read an article in the local free paper about this a few months ago, had a few musicians speaking against it I think. Can't find a website for the paper but found this Artists mount campaign against s92



posted on Feb, 12 2009 @ 03:13 PM
link   
reply to post by paddz420
 


cheers for the link, I hadnt heard that we had artists up in arms about it aswell...
as I had suspected this law is more about preemptive policing via spying, than protection of itellectual property!

i still want to know why we are guinea pigging such legislation?
my relatives in Nepal can get DVD's before they are released for around a dollar, like 50cents for a "poor copy" little over twice that for a "good copy"...

outrageous!

you would think they would start in countries where piracy is an actuall issue...



posted on Feb, 12 2009 @ 03:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by ImaginaryReality1984

The problem is that internet companies cannot tell the difference between legal and illegal traffic unless they view the sum of one individuals traffic. That to me is invasion of privacy.

...

Remember that clamping down on any freedom first requires a small, publicly supported step before you roll out many other limitations. This copyrighted stuff is that first, publicly accepted step.


I got a sneaking suspicion that you understand the technical side of this a lot more than i do, not hard considering how little i know...
but youre suggesting that the only way they can accurately determine what downloaded material is in breach of copyright laws, is to actively monitor every file that come down the copper and into my computer?

invasion of privacy is right, are we no longer under the protection of the privacy act? or is that the real law we should be tweaking for the digital age?

I couldnt agree more, this is merely the first step...
what are the next steps?



posted on Feb, 12 2009 @ 03:30 PM
link   
reply to post by sy.gunson
 



Its a sad day when all of a countries citizens become "suspects"...
it appears that day may have come for us here in NZ.

suspected of Robin Hooding!

id love to trawl through the government computers, i bet they will be breaking their own laws in some regards on this one...



posted on Feb, 12 2009 @ 07:25 PM
link   
reply to post by Zeus187
 


I agree. Why test it out on us in NZ? At least test it out in a country where piracy is an issue and where the results of the law would be easier to recognise.







 
11
<< 1   >>

log in

join