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.

 

SABAM v. Netlog: ECJ confirms general filtering systems installed for the prevention of copyright in

page: 2
16
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 16 2012 @ 09:12 AM
link   
I don't follow you. Are you saying once intellectual property gets hacked or illegally made for free download, it's public domain?




posted on Feb, 16 2012 @ 09:21 AM
link   

Originally posted by MattNC
I don't follow you. Are you saying once intellectual property gets hacked or illegally made for free download, it's public domain?


Yes.

Its not really hard logic to follow. If it out there in public then imo it's public domain.

How on Earth are you going to recall it once hundreds or thousands of people have downloaded it. And why should those people who are sharing it around because they enjoy it suffer because you were lax on security. Like I said go sue the hacker for all you can get, but unless others are directly profiting from it there's really not much you can (or in my opinion should) really do.




edit on 16/2/2012 by 1littlewolf because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 16 2012 @ 09:27 AM
link   
So if your bank account got hacked and how to access it got posted on the internet somewhere, it's ok for anyone to go get your money so long as it wasn't the person that hacked it?

If I go to your family dwelling when no one is home, kicked the doors in, it's ok for anyone in the neighborhood to come take your things so long as it wasn't me, the person that defeated the locks?
edit on 16-2-2012 by MattNC because: further thought



posted on Feb, 16 2012 @ 09:47 AM
link   

Originally posted by MattNC
So if your bank account got hacked and how to access it got posted on the internet somewhere, it's ok for anyone to go get your money so long as it wasn't the person that hacked it?

If I go to your family dwelling when no one is home, kicked the doors in, it's ok for anyone in the neighborhood to come take your things so long as it wasn't me, the person that defeated the locks?
edit on 16-2-2012 by MattNC because: further thought


Now if somone stole all my money or took all my belongings they be profiting wouldn't they....

They'd also be committing break and enter as well as burglary, which are separate crimes in their own right and aren't really related to intellectual property but material goods. We were talking about Intellectual Property remember, as in ideas, songs, paintings or stories. Stealing my grandmother's jewellery is completely different.
edit on 16/2/2012 by 1littlewolf because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 16 2012 @ 09:53 AM
link   
it's all property.

And if I stole grandma's TV to use for myself, that's not profitting.



posted on Feb, 16 2012 @ 10:02 AM
link   

Originally posted by MattNC
it's all property.

And if I stole grandma's TV to use for myself, that's not profitting.


If you took my grandmother's TV without committing break and enter, yet at the same time grandma still had her TV that not would not be stealing that would be sharing. I guess you could more think of it as you and grandma sitting down together and watching the same TV.

Hey, I'm sure she'd even let you hold the remote for a bit.







edit on 16/2/2012 by 1littlewolf because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 16 2012 @ 10:51 AM
link   

Originally posted by MattNC
I'm curious: If you all made a living and supported your families by creating intellectual property and getting royalty payments from it, how would you feel if your hard work was being passed around for free?

Is it ok to do this because the perceived intellectual property owners are so "rich"? How low does income level of those you are stealing from have to go before it's no longer acceptable?


The Film and Music Corporations have been ripping off both the artists and the public for decades.
It's what they do.

In fact many musicians are now self promoting and selling their product themselves via the web, at MUCH lower prices than those which are artificially inflated by the music industry, and no-one I know has any problem at all paying direct to the artist.
In the music industry, a musician is charged at hugely inflated prices for studio time, and for every person who contributes, even charging hundreds of dollars for the guy who fetches the sandwiches, leaving the artist with a huge bill that is deducted from sales before any revenue goes to the artist.

For decades the film industry has been ripping off authors and screenwriters, not to mention the public with shady accounting, contracts weighted heavily in favour of the studios etc etc.
There have been countless instances of authors having their material ripped off by the film industry. Here's how they do it: Author refuses to sign one sided contract, film studio changes the material just enough too cast doubt on copyright infringement using a studio employed screenwriter, author wants to sue but cannot afford to spend years in litigation. Film studio laughs their arses off and moves on to the next scam.

When both these corporate industries stop ripping others off, maybe those who "file share" will no longer see the need to keep doing it, but as it stands now, the corporations (as ever) want to have their cake and eat it.



posted on Feb, 16 2012 @ 11:19 AM
link   
reply to post by 1littlewolf
 


Your poster has entertainment value but that's the only value.

If stealing as you propose is ok... and it is stealing and does not fit the concept of public domain... what's the motivation for somone to create a new program or product? For the greater good alone? The greater good doesn't put immediate food on the table.




edit on 16-2-2012 by MattNC because: just 'cause



posted on Feb, 16 2012 @ 11:34 AM
link   



For decades the film industry has been ripping off authors and screenwriters, not to mention the public with shady accounting, contracts weighted heavily in favour of the studios etc etc.


If you own a business and it becomes successful, who has the right to tell you "well you've made enough money now... you now have to give some up to those who couldn't figure out how to be successful." Who can judge that? Who decides the apprpriate amount?



posted on Feb, 16 2012 @ 11:45 AM
link   
reply to post by MattNC
 


Oh do tell me how is it stealing if noone loses money or suffers in any way financially? How is it stealing if the "thief" doesn't gain any monetary value? Explain that.



posted on Feb, 16 2012 @ 11:46 AM
link   
reply to post by MattNC
 


The point is quite simple.

Intellectual property and profit or not more important then freedom and privacy.
Freedom and privacy are more important then intellectual property and profit.

IP and profit are still defended.
Freedom and privacy are still upheld.


Give it a rest already or go sue china.



posted on Feb, 16 2012 @ 12:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by MattNC



For decades the film industry has been ripping off authors and screenwriters, not to mention the public with shady accounting, contracts weighted heavily in favour of the studios etc etc.


If you own a business and it becomes successful, who has the right to tell you "well you've made enough money now... you now have to give some up to those who couldn't figure out how to be successful." Who can judge that? Who decides the apprpriate amount?


Not even a good attempt at a dodge.

Now why don't you try doing what you keep asking of others and address ALL the points I raised, rather than just the ones that suit you.

You might also like to investigate why the film industry is based in California - hint: it was so they didn't have to pay royalties to Edison, and could rip off his invention.

What's sauce for the goose...



posted on Feb, 16 2012 @ 12:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by PsykoOps
reply to post by MattNC
 


Oh do tell me how is it stealing if noone loses money or suffers in any way financially? How is it stealing if the "thief" doesn't gain any monetary value? Explain that.


Easy concept: If I profit $100 per software license sold, and sharing/piracy results in me losing 1000 "legit" unit sales, I've had $100,000 stolen from me.

It's like you going on vacation and not paying for the hotel room you rented. You didn't profit, but you didn't pay the hotel what you should have.



posted on Feb, 16 2012 @ 12:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by budski

Originally posted by MattNC



For decades the film industry has been ripping off authors and screenwriters, not to mention the public with shady accounting, contracts weighted heavily in favour of the studios etc etc.


If you own a business and it becomes successful, who has the right to tell you "well you've made enough money now... you now have to give some up to those who couldn't figure out how to be successful." Who can judge that? Who decides the apprpriate amount?


Not even a good attempt at a dodge.

Now why don't you try doing what you keep asking of others and address ALL the points I raised, rather than just the ones that suit you.

You might also like to investigate why the film industry is based in California - hint: it was so they didn't have to pay royalties to Edison, and could rip off his invention.

What's sauce for the goose...


I'm taking a broader approach. File sharing is file sharing. Doesn't matter if it's music, movies, software. All wrong.



posted on Feb, 16 2012 @ 12:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by MattNC

Originally posted by PsykoOps
reply to post by MattNC
 


Oh do tell me how is it stealing if noone loses money or suffers in any way financially? How is it stealing if the "thief" doesn't gain any monetary value? Explain that.


Easy concept: If I profit $100 per software license sold, and sharing/piracy results in me losing 1000 "legit" unit sales, I've had $100,000 stolen from me.

It's like you going on vacation and not paying for the hotel room you rented. You didn't profit, but you didn't pay the hotel what you should have.


So, which part of the music/film industry do you work in?

Why is it OK for film studios and record labels to rip other peoples intellectual property off?

Why is it OK for the film and music industry to charge multiple times for the same product at ever higher prices?



posted on Feb, 16 2012 @ 12:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by MattNC

Originally posted by budski

Originally posted by MattNC



For decades the film industry has been ripping off authors and screenwriters, not to mention the public with shady accounting, contracts weighted heavily in favour of the studios etc etc.


If you own a business and it becomes successful, who has the right to tell you "well you've made enough money now... you now have to give some up to those who couldn't figure out how to be successful." Who can judge that? Who decides the apprpriate amount?


Not even a good attempt at a dodge.

Now why don't you try doing what you keep asking of others and address ALL the points I raised, rather than just the ones that suit you.

You might also like to investigate why the film industry is based in California - hint: it was so they didn't have to pay royalties to Edison, and could rip off his invention.

What's sauce for the goose...


I'm taking a broader approach. File sharing is file sharing. Doesn't matter if it's music, movies, software. All wrong.


You are not taking a broader approach, you are dodging perfectly legitimate questions because you either cannot answer them, or (more likely) you do not want your propaganda derailed.



posted on Feb, 16 2012 @ 12:15 PM
link   



So, which part of the music/film industry do you work in?

Why is it OK for film studios and record labels to rip other peoples intellectual property off?

Why is it OK for the film and music industry to charge multiple times for the same product at ever higher prices?


-I don't
-It's wrong for anyone to do it no matter who went first
-Don't buy if you don't like the price. don't steal it either. That speaks louder than any law.



posted on Feb, 16 2012 @ 12:16 PM
link   



You are not taking a broader approach, you are dodging perfectly legitimate questions because you either cannot answer them, or (more likely) you do not want your propaganda derailed.


Restate. I missed it. But know I'm not a movie/music industry expert.
edit on 16-2-2012 by MattNC because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 16 2012 @ 12:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by MattNC



You are not taking a broader approach, you are dodging perfectly legitimate questions because you either cannot answer them, or (more likely) you do not want your propaganda derailed.




Read back, stop being a shill and stop defending corporations.

Example: I need a new computer, and the only operating system available is the latest one, but this software is so full of conflicts that it is not really fit for purpose. By the time it IS fit for purpose it is obsolete and the whole cycle starts again.

Just another example of a corporation ripping off customers.

Here's another one - music companies still charging top dollar for artists who are long dead, then pocketing all the profits. In case you don't know, after a certain number of years following the death of an artist, their music is free for all, no PRS (or equivalent) no nothing. All the money goes to the record company.

People are fed up of being ripped off.
End of story.

You don't like file sharing?
Tough.
edit on 16/2/2012 by budski because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 16 2012 @ 12:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by budski

Originally posted by MattNC



You are not taking a broader approach, you are dodging perfectly legitimate questions because you either cannot answer them, or (more likely) you do not want your propaganda derailed.




Read back, stop being a shill and stop defending corporations.

Example: I need a new computer, and the only operating system available is the latest one, but this software is so full of conflicts that it is not really fit for purpose. By the time it IS fit for purpose it is obsolete and the whole cycle starts again.

Just another example of a corporation ripping off customers.

Here's another one - music companies still charging top dollar for artists who are long dead, then pocketing all the profits. In case you don't know, after a certain number of years following the death of an artist, their music is free for all, no PRS (or equivalent) no nothing. All the money goes to the record company.

People are fed up of being ripped off.
End of story.

You don't like file sharing?
Tough.
edit on 16/2/2012 by budski because: (no reason given)


So it's the fault of companies because you have to have the latest music or gadget right away? There's no law against impulse control.




top topics



 
16
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join