Swiss Government Declares Downloading for Personal Use Legal , page 11
Pages: <<  8    9    10    11  >>
ATS Members have flagged this thread 72 times


reply posted on 18-12-2011 @ 06:16 PM by rival
reply to post by CranialSponge


It is still a justification of theft. If an artist gives away material to promote his product take it,
It was free and intended to BE FREE. But taking without permission if theft. One's a gift,
one's a criminal act.

I can't see any better way to explain this, and the point is probably moot, because the message
is falling on deaf ears.

I'll go back to my situation and relate it. I have a product of intellectual property due out soon, (i hope).
It is music, it is not under any label, I will self promote. I have paid for the instruments, will pay for the studio time
and packaging, (though the actual work, will end up costing me way more in expended time and energy
than the trivial cost of of studios, guitars etc.)

When done, I will promote it on youtube, facebook etc. and I will be giving away some material
for promotion just like Tom Petty.

To be honest, I would find it flattering if my music was being shared on torrent sites to any large
degree, because it would give what I have to offer some merit, but an inflated ego doesn't buy pampers.

Today, due to the web, artists like myself, have a venue to promote what we have to offer.
We don't need a recording contract. New (young) bands can self-promote, give away free
material and can do quite well, without ever signing to a label, And the point is, if you are stealing
from these artists, you are shooting yourself in the foot.

My daughter, for example, wants to be an author. This career path is probably more difficult
today than it ever has been. She reads constantly. I spent 30 bucks on books in the
last few weeks, and she fileshares some material (much to my chagrin even if it
saves me money.) Among her, and her friends, this is perfectly acceptable--more-so, because
everyone is doing it, and if everyone is doing it, it must be right.

WRONG. I am very proud of my daughter for her ambition, but she fails to understand that
filesharing will hurt her future profit if she becomes marginally successful.

As I said, in this day and age, artists are not compelled to sign to major labels, and the truth
is very few artists achieve mainstream success, where filesharing is more a nuisance
than a crime. These artists are being rewarded handsomely for their effort. But for the
struggling artist, honing his craft, and self-promoting...well, you just can't acquire diapers by telling
the lady behind the counter that you wrote a really swell piece of software, you need money.

I know that sounds ~awfully~ greedy of me, wanting to profit from my work and talent.

But which is greedier, me wanting to get paid for my effort, or someone wanting to steal
it from me for free. And having the cajones to tell me that it is justified...

I'm really feeling like an old man now when I say this, but, kids today just don't get it.


reply posted on 18-12-2011 @ 06:44 PM by arbiture
Originally posted by daskakik
reply to post by arbiture

I was not talking about information in general like intelligence agencies or the scientific community, which I believe goes straight into the public domain, but copyrighted property like music, books and that type of intellectual property.

The Berne Convention does include most of the countries of the world but it is up to the interested party to gather evidence and present the lawsuit to start the process and it isn't the governments place to investigate or look into private citizens lives on behalf of those parties.

edit on 17-12-2011 by daskakik because: (no reason given)


No sweat. I didn't mean to spook you, no pun intended.


reply posted on 18-12-2011 @ 07:35 PM by daskakik
Originally posted by rival
reply to post by CranialSponge

It is still a justification of theft. If an artist gives away material to promote his product take it,
It was free and intended to BE FREE. But taking without permission if theft. One's a gift,
one's a criminal act.

I can't see any better way to explain this, and the point is probably moot, because the message
is falling on deaf ears.

Here is what you don't seem to understand. Copyright gives you an exclusive right to copy and distribute the intellectual property that you have a copyright to but the actual content is public and you know longer own it.

Before copyright laws once you sold something then you'd loose control over it and whoever bought it was free, in a capitalist society, to make copies and sell it themselves. They came up with a law to prevent this but even upon it's inception it was recognized that it was not theft of the intellectual property but infringment upon the copyright holders exclusive right to copy and sell.

Now you can call it whatever you like but the Supreme Court had this to say:
DOWLING v. UNITED STATES, 473 U.S. 207 (1985)
It follows that interference with copyright does not easily equate with theft, conversion, or fraud. The Copyright Act even employs a separate term of art to define one who misappropriates a copyright: "`Anyone who violates any of the exclusive rights of the copyright owner,' that is, anyone who trespasses into his exclusive domain by using or authorizing the use of the copyrighted work in one of the five ways set forth in the statute, `is an infringer of the copyright.' [17 U.S.C.] 501(a)." Sony Corp., supra, at 433. There is no dispute in this case that Dowling's unauthorized inclusion on his bootleg albums of performances of copyrighted compositions constituted infringement of those copyrights. It is less clear, however, that the taking that occurs when an infringer arrogates the use of another's protected work comfortably fits the terms associated with physical removal employed by 2314. The infringer invades a statutorily defined province guaranteed to the copyright holder alone. But he does not assume physical control over the copyright; nor does he wholly deprive its owner of its use.

So legally it is not theft. Now before you say that I see it this way to help me sleep at night I will be honest and say that I would sleep just as well even if this wasn't the case.



reply posted on 19-12-2011 @ 12:35 AM by Observor
Intellectual property is a privilege granted by a society, not a right. Copyright laws and patent laws curtail the rights of other individuals to independently come upon the same patterns (for all inellectual property is nothing more than patterns of design, words, notes, moving frames etc) and profit from them. Since no one can come up with a pattern without using patterns already available to everyone, to claim ownership of a particular pattern is meaningless. However, a society, in the overall interests of the society, may deem it necessary to grant exclusive financial profit privileges to the first ones to come upon a hitherto non-existing pattern for a period of time. That is the motivation behind copyright laws and patent laws. Prohibiting activities that involve no financial profit for the ones engaging in it because the copyright or patent holders believe they could have made bigger financial profits in the absence of such activities is beyond the intent and scope of the copyright laws/patent laws.

The Swiss government is right in declaring that activities involving copyrighted material that do not involve financial benefit for either of the participants are not copyright violations.

Of course, this means that the intent of the copyright laws, to encourage creativity by making it profitable, becomes difficult to see through without further curtailing the rights of individuals on how they use what they own.

But that throws up an interesting question, who should determine what the creators/inventors are worth? The market or the government? If it is the market, no changes are needed to the copyright laws, because those who deem the copyrighted material worth paying for, do so and those who do not, do not, whether they use the material for non-commercial purposes or not.

All those creative artists who think no one may "enjoy" their work without first paying them their due, should strive to ensure that it becomes technologically infeasible to do so, like many softwares try to. I know it can be quite an expensive proposition, but if all the creators together do not find creativity worth protecting, not sure why the society should, especially when a significant number of them don't feel the creativity worth paying for.


reply posted on 19-12-2011 @ 11:56 AM by jaduguru
Originally posted by daskakik
Originally posted by jaduguru
So this is why my games and music and movie rentals cost so much ....

No the reason is that copywright is a monopoly and the copyright holder can charge whatever they like. I'm sure they have number crunchers come up with the highest price that most are willing to pay before they start sharing.

So Piracy is now called "sharing" ? .. ( BTW .. back in the days of cassettes tapes and copy games was called Hacking )

Some governments have enacted laws, like the one in the OP, that state that downloading intellectual property is no different than sharing. And back in the days Hacking was gaining unautherized access to networks not making copies of cassettes. Making copies of an album for a friend was nothing now they are trying to make it a felony.

Kids dont get it ..they never will.

People who create these file sharing tools and the people who have been at it for decades are anything but kids. No need to be condescending.

You see .. its Stealing no matter what you want to call it.

It's not what we call it but what the legal system calls it.

You Kids are going to regret stealing/hacking/sharing .. Your Too Blatant about it.

I somehow Know its not the older ATS'ers that condone this .. You just dont get it .. but you will soon .. and It is not MY fault. You leave no choice.

What? You point out that it has been done since the 70's with cassettes but now, 40 years later, we leave no choice.

edit on 18-12-2011 by daskakik because: (no reason given)


You obviously do not remember how programs were stored on cassette tapes.

In the 70's you could only Dup music if you had another unit with a microphone that would record playback ( including your voice .. you would leave the room when recording )

But whatever .. your quoting me on such a small scale but will not answer the other issues or scenarios in my post.

The Downloading of whatever if its not "public domain" ( remember that term in your young life ? ).

Lemme put it this way .. Will you Buy said Music or Application if it were intended to be Sold and not Public Domain ? .. Probably not.

You will undoubtedly continue to just search Whatever you want in the Net for Free.

If your anyone like some peeps that I knew in the past you probably had games 2 days after release date ( when Someone Ripped it up ).

Trust me .. I have used "newsgroups" for 30 years.

I could DL and fill my whole HD with music and apps in 2 days if I wanted to.. and some of you know this.

If its on the Net its free and clear to you guys .. but I will remind you that your only hurting yourselves thinking that the Big guys that make Big Bucks dont loose a penny on the dollar. and dont care ,, Your So wrong ..

You dont think it wrong just because they put into law now .. but Wait .. it WAS illegal before ..just changed there minds about it ?? LOL ..

Bottom line im gonna give you here..

You KNOW when you click on "enter to start downloading"
You KNOW when you put your Rars and Pars together its.. Hope that you wont get caught.

You Should Know that You Will get Pars .. and Rars that cannot be "undone".

Your Stealing and you know it. You Will NOT Buy it if you can just Download it ..

Am I wrong or am I right ?

JG.


reply posted on 19-12-2011 @ 01:36 PM by daskakik
reply to post by jaduguru


Yes I played with a C-64 with a cassette drive. Making copies of games and programs still didn't make you a hacker.

Already posted why it is not stealing and why the SCOTUS agrees in a previous post.

Reel to reel units have been around since the 50's. Recording off the radio with a mic is still making a copy.

I didn't address the other scenerios because they don't apply. Physical items and intellectual property are different.

You Will NOT Buy it if you can just Download it ..

Am I wrong or am I right ?


Actually your wrong. If I can or can't download it has no effect on if I will or will not buy it. I'm not really a collector so cable and on-line radio take care of most my music and movie needs. Don't really play games but I have been known to rock a game trial for extended periods of time. That only leaves software and if it is something that I need for work then I have no problem paying for it because it pays for itself in the end. Freeware takes care of the rest.

ETA: The one thing that I will DL is the odd new movie. No real movie theaters where I live and I refuse to pay for a physical copy when I have no interest in keeping a copy in my possesion. Since they don't offer a viable alternative and the law is on my side then I have no problem with it.

edit on 19-12-2011 by daskakik because: (no reason given)

Pages: <<  8    9    10    11  >>    ^^TOP^^