SEIV is being Pirated

[Puke]

quote:

---

Originally posted by geoschmo:
The fact is they haven't yet, and noone has the right to do it for them.

Geoschmo

---

sure, ethicaly. but its not called an ethical economy, its called a market economy. if there is an oportunity to make money, and you dont jump on it, someone is bound to do it for you. Im betting things would stay pretty much status quo in an ethical economy, and no one would get off their *** to innovate anything new.

Bell didn't invent the first or best telephone, he just nabbed the pattent on it a few hours before the guy with an earlier, better Version made it to the pattent office. The fact that multinational recording industry conglomerates happened to win a leagle battle against an internet music startup is purely a matter of symantics.

while I like to poo poo on music lables for being big and evil, they had actually planned to partner with napster from the begining, as napster was always intended to transform into a subscription based service. I think the real blame falls on artists like Lars who rose a big stink and crusaded against the internet music pirates before the industry was positioned to realize a profit from it. recal that his label didnt want anything to do with his lawsuit until after it was over.

but thats not really the point either. if you want to get into the leagle issues, you have to analyze how peer to peer file sharing works. napster isnt uploading music they dont own, and they are not downloading music they dont own. their license agrement provided clauses that people had to own music that they traded digitally, and while blame was put on them for 'misuse' of their service, I am not buying it.

making VHS tapes of cable broadcasts is 'wrong.' early tape rentals from your local video store were disposable, and they had an odomoter style dial to show how many times they were viewed. that policy died quick. kids making tape recordings of radio broadcasts are breaking the law. whatever crazy **** is illegal right now, if the industry does not change then market factors will change it for them. There are enough legitimate outlets where artists offer their work or samples of their work Online, and are compensated by paypal type systems, that I am not too woried about the future working its self out.

for now, ill keep buying CDs. mp3 quality is not up to par for serious listening anyway, just like VHS isnt up to quality for serious viewing. there ARE non-lossy compression formats, but they are generally not used on public web servers because of prohibitive file sizes.

[geoschmo]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Puke:
Im betting things would stay pretty much status quo in an ethical economy, and no one would get off their *** to innovate anything new.

---

Contrary to what many people think, the end does notjustify the means. You can't participate in illegal or unetical behaivor and justify it by saying, "If I didn't do it, somebody else would have." There are too many ways to make money in our economy that are perfectly legal. You don't have to skirt legality to do it.

quote:

---

Bell didn't invent the first or best telephone, he just nabbed the pattent on it a few hours before the guy with an earlier, better Version made it to the pattent office.

---

But that has nothing to do with the discussion here. Bell didn't "sample" the other guy's work and get a patent for himself on it. He patented his own work. It just so happeneded that the two were similer, and Bell got there first.

quote:

---

The fact that multinational recording industry conglomerates happened to win a leagle battle against an internet music startup is purely a matter of symantics.

---

Uh, no. It's a matter of law and ethics. Your dismisal of it is symantics.

quote:

---

while I like to poo poo on music lables for being big and evil, they had actually planned to partner with napster from the begining, as napster was always intended to transform into a subscription based service.[quote]And once they do, I will have no problem with it at all.[quote]if you want to get into the leagle issues, you have to analyze how peer to peer file sharing works. napster isnt uploading music they dont own, and they are not downloading music they dont own. their license agrement provided clauses that people had to own music that they traded digitally, and while blame was put on them for 'misuse' of their service, I am not buying it.

---

Actually you are off here. The fact that they did not "directly" do anything does not absolve them of responsibility, any more than simply driving the getaway car absolves someone from responsibility in a bank holdup.

quote:

---

whatever crazy **** is illegal right now, if the industry does not change then market factors will change it for them. There are enough legitimate outlets where artists offer their work or samples of their work Online, and are compensated by paypal type systems, that I am not too woried about the future working its self out.

---

You are probably right, but that does not give someone the right to steal someone elses work, or make money off enableing someone else to steal it.

[tesco samoa]

Quote
but thats not really the point either. if you want to get into the leagle issues, you have to analyze how peer to peer file sharing works. napster isnt uploading music they dont own, and they are not downloading music they dont own. their license agrement provided clauses that people had to own music that they traded digitally, and while blame was put on them for 'misuse' of their service, I am not buying it.

End Quote

In Canada it was legal to download songs from Napster (for personal) but it was Illegal to share them. Kind of like a bad star trek story.

Under the home user ( fair use policy) it is legal to copy streaming music and/or video for personal use.

I personally have used the services to get back cat. music that is not available and also to replace my LP's with CD's. I will not by a cd of something I have on LP. Sorry but double dipping is wrong (IMO).

I also feel that it is wrong to charge 20 dollars for a Kinks cd ( or any other cd that has been out for 20 years ).

But I stongly feel that you are not a criminal for downloading music or software.

Nor should you be grouped with criminals.

The music industry has wasted 7 years to develop a Online wharehouse of music. Fear and greed has kept that from happening. Now that they are finally doing it the model will not work. (Until they combine all their resources ( what will happen when retail cd stores want a piece of the pie ))

The story about artists not getting their due is not 100% acurate.
Look at Prince's Online album and how he benifited from it. ( Set a limit on how many albums he wanted to sell to make a profit, then release it and not care about it being shared or copied. Prince ended up making as much as he did with his Last 5 Record label releases) It is the Music Food chain that is not getting their due's. The artist is at the bottom of that food chain. If you ever get the chance to read a contract offered from the labels, you would laugh ( and cry ) and then go get a lawyer. They will tell you not to sign.

And with the person who went to see your friends band. Isn't he supporting them by going to their concert. Buying their stuff at the show. I doubt that the band gets much from that guy buying a CD of their music from a retail store.

What would they do if he said that he bought the cd used ???

Um. Sorry about writting all that. This topic is very important to me. I hope I do not offend anyone.

As you can guess I am against the DMCA and the RIAA.

This is a good topic.



------------------
L? GdX $ Fr C++ SdT T+ Sf* Tcp+ A M++ MpTM ROTS Pw+ Fq+ Nd Rp++ G+

[Askan Nightbringer]

"What a man believes upon grossly insufficient evidence is an index into his desires -- desires of which he himself is often unconscious. If a man is offered a fact which goes against his instincts, he will scrutinize it closely, and unless the evidence is overwhelming, he will refuse to believe it. If, on the other hand, he is offered something which affords a reason for acting in accordance to his instincts, he will accept it even on the slightest evidence. The origin of myths is explained in this way." -- Bertrand Russell, in "Roads to Freedom"


"It doesn't matter how many times you paint a fence, it is still a fence. Hitler had reasons for exterminating Jews, the CIA had reasons for attempting to rig Australian elections, a student has reasons to copy another's work and Trevor Chappel had a reason for bowling underam to New Zealand. Having an excuse doesn't make it any less wrong." -- Askan Nightbringer, in "Shrapnel Games Forum"

[geoschmo]

Please don't get me wrong. I am in no way pointing anybody out specifically and saying you are a criminal for downloading music from Napster, or software from Warez. I don't know if you have a legitimate reason why you should be able to download a copy.

The point is neither do Napster or Warez. They don't care if you are bought the software but your cd got broke. They don't care if you are planning on buying the album and want to hear the music first. They get there money from advertising whether or not you are legitamate.

They are the criminals becasue they are the one's stealing the product, offering it for free consumption, and getting revenues from advertising on the sites.

It's the same thing when TV stations are looking for shows to broadcast. They have to pay the distributor (Paramount, etc.) of the movie so they can show it. Then they charge McDonalds for advertising so Joe Blow can tune in at 8 and watch the movie. They don't charge Joe Blow. If they don't pay Paramount, and Joe Blow watches it anyway, maybe he isn't doing anything illegal, (or maybe he is, I don't know), but the TV station sure as heck is. There is no question about that.

There shouldn't be a question about Napster or Warez either.

Geoschmo

[This message has been edited by geoschmo (edited 29 August 2001).]

[disabled]

Here is al that I know. I think getting and keep programs and not paying for is illegal. Downloading demos and keeping the demos are legal.

Same applies to music.

I never listened to techno or rock or anything until I went to MP3.com by accident and d/l a song. Now I take maybe a day or two each month to go song hunting on these services to figure out what CD I'm going to buy next from the mall.

However, I do not tolerate taking the music, burning a CD out of it, and not paying for the songs unless the songs are public domain.


However, I do know there was one song I got from napster and the author no longer sold the song, nor was it being distributed. So, for the hell of it, I sent a check as a donation to the author of the song. I got a nice, hand written thank you in return that I'm still trying to translate to english....

In that, I feel I did not steal the song as I did pay for it in my own way. Afterall, MP3's tax the memory of a computer more than a CD audio track in my CD player.

As for software, the only free software I take is that sent to me for a formal review from a developer/publisher. Which has happened twice. I consider them letting me keep the game thier payment for my services.

Often, I will run into a site that runs to a warez site. If I find that you can download the game (and it's not a site full of porn links), I will promptly report them to the makers of the game and report the email of the person to his ISP or to the FCC.

There is a very fine line between sampling and stealing on the internet that people are all too often too blinded to see.

Yes, I do sample foods at diners and such if they allow it or offer it. What can I say, I enjoy food.

------------------
HADRIAN T. AVENTINE
[email protected]
Administrator | SpaceEmpires.org

[disabled]

Just a little question for all of you...

Tell me, if you download a copy of original Beowulf off the net, is that stealing?

Also, if it is, who are you stealing from?
Let me know what you think.

------------------
HADRIAN T. AVENTINE
[email protected]
Administrator | SpaceEmpires.org

[geoschmo]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Hadrian Aventine:
Just a little question for all of you...

Tell me, if you download a copy of original Beowulf off the net, is that stealing?

Also, if it is, who are you stealing from?
Let me know what you think.

---

If you mean the original Beowulf, the book that's hundreds of years old, no. Even if you knew who wrote it (I think it is listed as author unknown) any copyright protection it would have is long since expired. It would be considered public domain.

Of course if the author were still around, he could more than make up for any lost book sales by publishing his secrets for eternal life.

Geoschmo

[LazarusLong42]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Richard:
Because by downloading it he adds one more vote to why the warez site handler should stay in business and probably makes him some money via banners.

---

Heh. Indeed, you're absolutely right, and so is Geo. While the download is questionably ethical, the upload certainly is unethical... which invalidates any ethics on the download side. (I knew I was forgetting something ) Unfortunately, that doesn't make it less complex... and it doesn't shut down the warez sites. The question becomes, simply, how to shut them down?

LL

[LazarusLong42]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Hadrian Aventine:
Here is al that I know. I think getting and keep programs and not paying for is illegal. Downloading demos and keeping the demos are legal.

Same applies to music.

I never listened to techno or rock or anything until I went to MP3.com by accident and d/l a song. Now I take maybe a day or two each month to go song hunting on these services to figure out what CD I'm going to buy next from the mall.

However, I do not tolerate taking the music, burning a CD out of it, and not paying for the songs unless the songs are public domain.

---

I am always torn by this sort of debate. As an artist of a differnet sort (fiction) I have to fall on the strict legal side and say that downloading music from Napster is wrong (as a frex). But as a consumer, I feel that sampling the music with intent to possibly purchase is not wrong ethically, if illegal technically.

However, I have to say that ethically _and_ legally, it's wrong to _offer_ the files for distribution unless you are the original artist/writer/whatever.

I have a story coming out in September on a site called Speculon (www.speculon.com). They paid me for the right to publish the story on their site, and as such they can offer the story for distribution. I also know how they publish the stories, and pretty much anyone who knows how to hit ^C^V can copy the story and post it on their own site. This would be patently illegal, and definitely unethical.

But would it be unethical for someone on another site to offer the first several paragraphs of my story, up to the hook? Illegal, technically yes--more than a paragraph or so would be hard to justify under the Fair Use Act. But immoral and unethical? Did they post a link to the original publication and their link is generating more hits to my story? Well, then it's hard to say it's wrong.

And that's where the debate starts to boil down. No matter what point is made that downloading or uploading the material is unethical, there comes a point where the original artist is going to concede that, yeah, it's OK to upload a chunk as long as there's some way to find the original. And then someone who sees this done takes it a step further, and Posts more than should be, or the entire work, or without a link...

And then it goes out of control.

As an artist, there are a dozen ways to feel. Be puritanical about it--as Lars Ulrich, Harlan Ellison, and Paramount Pictures, among others, have done--and try to stop every instance of anything approaching piracy. This, unfortunately, breeds bad blood, as evidenced by the backlash against Paramount that came from Star Trek fansites, or the "Napster Bad" cartoon series published by Camp Chaos. (Harlan Ellison's already hated by enough people that I'm sure the backlash didn't affect him).

Or, be really laid-back about it, as many artists have done--some to the point of simply putting all their material right onto the net. This sounds all warm and fuzzy, but I think all of those artists admit that it cuts into profits a bit.

Software companies, like Shrapnel, have the same choices. Trust their customers, like Shrapnel has, which makes it harder to stop pirates--or place every protection under the sun on the CD. In the latter case though, let's face it, eventually the protection will be cracked. And then the executables show up on warez sites all the same. Open source? Sure, and watch _all_ your profits disappear.

Perhaps the fact that we're still debating hte whole thing is a good sign. There's a whole lot of grey area. Those who uphold strict morals still can; those who are heavily soiled with black can continue screwing over "the man" while under continual threat of being sued or jailed.

And in the meantime, we can hope that artists, companies, and consumers are out there somewhere determining where the happy medium lies.

And I'll continue to be torn, but try my best to be ethical, until the medium is found.

(Whew, that was long. And probably rambling, but I'm not going back to recheck it And hey, I'm a corporal now! Woo!)

LL