Come on, Chas. You are not that naive.

Here's one example of this bullshit.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/timothylee/2...nnovation/

Quote:I contributed a chapter focusing on a recent development that I find particularly alarming: the increasing use of harsh criminal penalties, including civil asset forfeiture, against online intermediaries. In the past, disputes between major content companies and companies that allegedly facilitate copyright infringement have been treated as civil disputes between private parties. Napster, for example, faced a lawsuit from major record labels, and had the opportunity to make its case in court before it was shut down.

In 2008, Congress passed the PRO IP Act, which for the first time allowed the use of civil asset forfeiture in copyright cases. This tactic, which has become infamous due to its abuse in drug cases, allows the police to seize property without convicting, or even indicting, its owner of any crime. The police have used this tactic with devastating effect against startups such as Megaupload, a popular file-sharing site that was shuttered by the federal government in January. The feds seized the Megaupload servers, all the firm’s assets, as well as the personal assets of founder Kim Dotcom. And they have charged Dotcom with criminal copyright infringement and are seeking his extradition from his home in New Zealand.

Rich corporations are turning the government into their thugs.

Dude really? The Dotcom case is a clear example of a someone being rightly prosecuted for profiting from the works of others.

His new service, Mega, probably avoids the legal death trap that he put himself in the first time by making it impossible for file identification server-side, but he'll still be convicted again if it's shown that he's knowingly profiting from copyrighted works (eg. by not removing files that have been identified).

(October 2, 2014 at 6:59 pm)ForumMember77 Wrote: Like the pirate bay ?

Is it stealing to use the site for stuff you would otherwise have to pay for ?

Simple answer is yes, obviously.

But what people are stealing isn't tangible, should that matter. Is policing such things more a kin to chasing thought criminals, the stuff they are downloading is nothing but information.

Love them.
I don't care if it's piracy(In part thats due that I'm mexican piracy is in our veins).
I use it for movies, tv-seires, anime, comics, web comics, mangas, programs, games, psd files, ai files, flv files, tutorials, e-books, audiobooks, 3D maps.


Oh and you know music.

---

(October 3, 2014 at 11:20 am)jesus_wept Wrote:

(October 3, 2014 at 8:45 am)Chas Wrote: Oh, FFS.

I'm not American so the FBI can kiss my ass.

(October 3, 2014 at 3:49 pm)Minimalist Wrote: Come on, Chas. You are not that naive.

Here's one example of this bullshit.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/timothylee/2...nnovation/

Quote:I contributed a chapter focusing on a recent development that I find particularly alarming: the increasing use of harsh criminal penalties, including civil asset forfeiture, against online intermediaries. In the past, disputes between major content companies and companies that allegedly facilitate copyright infringement have been treated as civil disputes between private parties. Napster, for example, faced a lawsuit from major record labels, and had the opportunity to make its case in court before it was shut down.

In 2008, Congress passed the PRO IP Act, which for the first time allowed the use of civil asset forfeiture in copyright cases. This tactic, which has become infamous due to its abuse in drug cases, allows the police to seize property without convicting, or even indicting, its owner of any crime. The police have used this tactic with devastating effect against startups such as Megaupload, a popular file-sharing site that was shuttered by the federal government in January. The feds seized the Megaupload servers, all the firm’s assets, as well as the personal assets of founder Kim Dotcom. And they have charged Dotcom with criminal copyright infringement and are seeking his extradition from his home in New Zealand.

Rich corporations are turning the government into their thugs.

I am not naive - I create intellectual property and I want to be paid for it.

You don't want to pay? You don't get to have it. Simple.

I don't give a rat's ass about your example - it has nothing to do with the issue.

(October 4, 2014 at 12:17 am)Chas Wrote: I am not naive - I create intellectual property and I want to be paid for it.

You don't want to pay? You don't get to have it. Simple.

I don't give a rat's ass about your example - it has nothing to do with the issue.

You have the exclusive right to profit from your works, but you do not have the right to dictate what is done privately with those works.

This has been established many many times:

* Publishers tried to stop the photocopier.
* Publishers tried to stop VCR's and claimed that they would refuse to release home video mainstream (eg. hollywood) movies on the format. The initially released home video products exclusively on laserdisc. VHS welcomed the 80's porn industry to the format, and before long everyone had VCR's. Thus, the publishers recanted and released home video movies on VHS.
* Record companies tried to stop CD's being rented or put in libraries.
* Home video publishers tried to do something similar with DVD (they printed "this disc is not for rental" on retail discs and lost in the High Court of Australia in 2001).
* Record companies opposed CD burners.
* In 2005 Sony introduced a rootkit virus in order to try and prevent their discs being copied.
* Record companies opposed MP3 players claiming that the format was inadequate for sound quality. They said they would never market or release music as MP3s.
* Publishers lobbied to have the duration of copyright changed from 50 years to the life of the author plus 75 years.
* They all oppose open-market competition and in particular parallel-importing.
* They introduced region-coding in order to try and stop parallel-importing by force.
* They (mainly Sony) tried to ban modchips and repeatedly lost.
* AFACT sued iiNet trying to make them block customer access to peer-to-peer and lost.

Shall I go on? Copyright companies think they can rape and pillage. It's about goddamn time they were put in their place and copyright was handled far more sensibly. For instance: it should last not longer than 50 years. Patents last for 20 years, I believe copyrights should last around 40 years. No one needs to keep profiting from works for longer than that, it's better for the community that works come out of copyright sooner. Just like it's better that patents last 20 years as opposed to 150 years. Can you imagine what it would mean if patents lasted as long as copyrights? It would mean the end of things like competition in pharmaceuticals, prices would go up, and the patent companies would go around raping and pillaging just like the copyright companies do.

I think the issue is that companies are treated as individuals when it comes to copyrights and patents. I understand that to some degree, but it's individuals that create and invent. Fifty years is fine for media properties (ie, artistic creations like music or movies or cartoon characters, etc). The reason they get extended is because instead of individuals owning them, corporations or businesses own them.

Not only does this lead to the government granting exceptions, but it allows situations such as those at Marvel and DC, where the companies got wealthy while the men who created their greatest characters got nothing. Or situations like the music industry, where corporations make billions of dollars a year while recording artists get tiny percentages of the money their music earns.

(October 4, 2014 at 2:06 am)Aractus Wrote:

(October 4, 2014 at 12:17 am)Chas Wrote: I am not naive - I create intellectual property and I want to be paid for it.

You don't want to pay? You don't get to have it. Simple.

I don't give a rat's ass about your example - it has nothing to do with the issue.

You have the exclusive right to profit from your works, but you do not have the right to dictate what is done privately with those works.

When it is fair use, no. When it is piracy, then yes.

Quote:This has been established many many times:

* Publishers tried to stop the photocopier.
* Publishers tried to stop VCR's and claimed that they would refuse to release home video mainstream (eg. hollywood) movies on the format. The initially released home video products exclusively on laserdisc. VHS welcomed the 80's porn industry to the format, and before long everyone had VCR's. Thus, the publishers recanted and released home video movies on VHS.
* Record companies tried to stop CD's being rented or put in libraries.
* Home video publishers tried to do something similar with DVD (they printed "this disc is not for rental" on retail discs and lost in the High Court of Australia in 2001).
* Record companies opposed CD burners.
* In 2005 Sony introduced a rootkit virus in order to try and prevent their discs being copied.
* Record companies opposed MP3 players claiming that the format was inadequate for sound quality. They said they would never market or release music as MP3s.
* Publishers lobbied to have the duration of copyright changed from 50 years to the life of the author plus 75 years.
* They all oppose open-market competition and in particular parallel-importing.
* They introduced region-coding in order to try and stop parallel-importing by force.
* They (mainly Sony) tried to ban modchips and repeatedly lost.
* AFACT sued iiNet trying to make them block customer access to peer-to-peer and lost.

Shall I go on? Copyright companies think they can rape and pillage. It's about goddamn time they were put in their place and copyright was handled far more sensibly. For instance: it should last not longer than 50 years. Patents last for 20 years, I believe copyrights should last around 40 years. No one needs to keep profiting from works for longer than that, it's better for the community that works come out of copyright sooner. Just like it's better that patents last 20 years as opposed to 150 years. Can you imagine what it would mean if patents lasted as long as copyrights? It would mean the end of things like competition in pharmaceuticals, prices would go up, and the patent companies would go around raping and pillaging just like the copyright companies do.

Copyright companies? I'm not talking about copyright companies.

I am talking about my rights to my property. If you use an unauthorized copy of my software, you are a thief.

(October 4, 2014 at 12:17 am)Chas Wrote:

(October 3, 2014 at 3:49 pm)Minimalist Wrote: Come on, Chas. You are not that naive.

Here's one example of this bullshit.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/timothylee/2...nnovation/


Rich corporations are turning the government into their thugs.

I am not naive - I create intellectual property and I want to be paid for it.

You don't want to pay? You don't get to have it. Simple.

I don't give a rat's ass about your example - it has nothing to do with the issue.

Speaking as someone who has created intellectually property both as a musician and a photographer, Piracy is probably the best thing ever for you. Especially for up and coming musicians, because it gives a far more level playing field and cuts out the greedy middle man of the major labels which many small bands have a problems with. As a result of this the music scene now is a lot better then it was even a few years ago. As a photographer, piracy doesn't effect you that much because people will rarely pay for photo's anymore any way.

(October 4, 2014 at 9:51 am)Chas Wrote: I am talking about my rights to my property. If you use an unauthorized copy of my software, you are a thief.

I'm not stealing your property, so I'm not a thief. At best, I'm an asshole (assuming I had the resources and intention to purchase a copy of your software).
Look at my "picture" analogy once again if you have doubts.

(October 4, 2014 at 1:51 pm)One Above All Wrote:

(October 4, 2014 at 9:51 am)Chas Wrote: I am talking about my rights to my property. If you use an unauthorized copy of my software, you are a thief.

I'm not stealing your property, so I'm not a thief. At best, I'm an asshole (assuming I had the resources and intention to purchase a copy of your software).
Look at my "picture" analogy once again if you have doubts.

Intellectual property law says you're a thief.