-
Preep...go find the thread on hollywood hacking and you'll discover that hollywood is pushing to make hacking legal for copyright holders. the bitch about it is that the artists, for the most part, don't own the copyright to their own music. The RIAA does, even though they give the illusion that they are protecting the artist, they are actually protecting themselves. The RIAA is a huge economic carnivore interested in nothing except draining our wallets.
er0k...you're right...it's all about the money and it's a damned shame that governmental resources should be diverted to enforce the financial interests of a corrupt coalition of executives who do nothing to produce anything with a tangible value. They had a chance to turn P2P into something profitable for them from the beginning and refused to. Now they cry to the government for protection from a threat that resulted from their own studidity. How pathetic.
-
Well, All the arguments I have seen so far have been great. Allow me to add some more to this.
According to the copyright laws of the US, a copyrighted medium owner (purchaser) is allowed to do the following.
- You are allowed to make back-up copies of your copyrighted medium for personal use and protection.
- You are allowed to sell the copyrighted material so long as you destroy all your copies and transfer the original to the new party.
So, I buy a new cd, and I rip it to mp3 on my computer for my own personal use and protection. This way if my original cd gets messed up, I can make a new one. Now lets say I decide I no longer want this cd and I decide to sell it. I can take the Mp3s and transfer them to a purchaser, take his money, and destroy all copies and mp3s I have on my computer. Now, so far as I know this is completely legal. So my question now is, how is any law enforcment going to be able to determine whether you legally purchased an mp3 selection, or got it from a p2p network?
Okay, moving furthur with this idea, is the US going to activly try and extradite foreign users who are infringing upon US copyrights? I think not.
On the idea of the record labels being allowed to send malicious code into these p2p networks. I seriously hope that while transfering an mp3 of my band that I recorded, I get a virus, or worm, or other malicious code inserted on my computer from a record company. That will be the day that I sue the hell out of them for destroying my personal property. Hell, why not a class action suit from all those who have had personal property destoyed.
The RIAA has opened a door that they will soon realise, will be there demise. The only thing that is coming from they're lobbying is more corruption. Money is being exchanged between officials and lobbyists and poloticians and it sickens me. Why they are activly pursuing this in a time of war is beyond me. Why they are spending congressional time on this while we have national security issues is also beyond my comprehension.
The RIAA is going to loose this battle regardless of what they do. They can continue their attempts, but ultimately the p2p groups and networks will continue to exsist. The only thing I can compare this to is the "Rave laws" that went into effect. Do you think that stopped us? Hell no, it just went underground.
As others have said, the public sets the law. If the law is something that the public doesn't agree is worthwhile, then there will be a big enough resistance to it that will make it obsolete. When was the last time you ever saw anyone arrested for copying a page from a book? That's still copyright infringement. Yet the public has stood against it and made it an absolete law. Hell, they even put copy machines in the libraries now. If thats not asking to break the law I don't know what is.
Well, I'm done ranting. This will be a short lived fight and I guarantee that in a year no one will even remember what the RIAA was.
-
Quote:
Originally posted here by er0k
... The fact is, that it wont be passed, and it wont be enforced even if it is, you cant exactly track down individuals all over the world just for downloading music/whatever from someone else. Mainly because of the millions and millions of ppl that do it everyday. That is like imposing a law to where you can only go 5 mph on the highway. No one would follow that law. And there would be too many ppl doing it to enforce it.
Whoa, there, folks: When you think any law that gets passed will not be enforced, you are dreaming an impossible dream. If there is a law "on the books" you can bet your bottom buck that there is an enforcement module (eats, drinks, breathes, smells like a carbon-based lifeform, but acts like a programed silicon-based lifeform...) who *will* enforce it. And, do you really believe that his boss, who may be a genuine carbon-based lifeform with the ability to think logically, will tell the energetic rookie; "Hey, bud, we don't enforce that, it's really stupid..."? No, not on you life, because they all stood before some high-court judge and *swore* to uphold and enforce *the laws of...), and guess what again, when they make an arrest it doesn't cost them anything, unlike the citizen who gets arrested and is required to either plead and hope for logic from the court, or mortgage his house and future earnings to pay for a lawyer who may or may not be interested, capable, trained in that field, or give a damn past his retainer up front? That's why we have to be so very careful on the wording of traffic and criminal laws, because if it's on the books you are going to live by it someday. And, if it is patently rediculous when it's introduced, you better band together with folks of similar feelings/training/expertise and introduce yourselves to the lawmakers who are considering it. Sometimes they don't get a chance to read anything past the introduction of the proposed legislation, so if you don't tell them what's wrong with it, and they pass it, then Bubba, get ready to live with it.
-
Old Man, Its illegal not to have brakes on a bicycle, I don't see anyone activly persuing these criminals even though its "on the books". There are countless thousands of laws that are overlooked everyday througout the united states. To try and enforce them all would be a pointless endevour. Oh, its also against the law to ride a bicycle without reflectors on them. Shoot I better watch out for the feds. [/sarcasm]
Not a personal attack or anything, I'm just trying to pursue the point that the people decide what laws are going to be pursued and which ones arn't. :)
-
xmaddness while its true that the police don't go around inspecting bikes, if someone called them they'd have no choice but to come and issue a summons. If someone found you were downloading mp3, like the recording industry, the feds would have no choice but to uphold what ever laws are in existance.
-
Yes you do have a point, the law, if called upon, must be upheld.
Although in order for the Music Industry to find MP3's on my computer, wouldn't they need a warrant? The only way for the RIAA to search my computer is if they go out and get a warrant to search my personal property. Without one the case would just get thrown out of court.
Now does this mean that they are going to issue search warrents for every person on napster, morpheus, and kazza's member lists? I don't think so.
I think the RIAA is going to just make a few examples, take it to court, make a big woopdedoo about it, and then forget about the rest. I gues they are just going to have to go down the alphabet through the member lists, apply for a warrant to search the computers, and then begin proceedings to prosecute in court. By the time they get around to my "member" name, xmaddness, I'll be about 106 years old.
-
i really think The Old Man is right, it may be that it will be the way you say xmaddness, but then again it may not and i can't forget that the RIAA wants the internet as a safe media for them to make money, pay per stream movies and music, i mean were talking billions in profit. Thats why AOL/TimeWarner is opposing them, they want control. But either way they both want it locked down safe, and they're going to do whatever they can to make it so, or whatever we allow them to get away with.
-
It occurs to me, that, if i were "The Government", i'd think real hard about starting up my own cloaking services and P2P secure nets, encrypted email services... you-all could probably think of some more neat little e-sting operations since you're younger and more energetic than i am... But, in all this privacy hullabaloo, i am wondering: if i and Bubbette both set up the tunneling options on W2K, or perhaps if we're using W98 instead of W2K we just configure ourselves a good ole PGP tunnel...... would we still need the services of the P2P sting operation to believe we were communicating securely across country? Hmmmmmmm?
