If you get caught taping one of Al Gore's or Michael Moore's movies you might get sued by the Cartoonist Union or the NAC (National Association of Clowns).

Fredisdead Thompson will now pay people to secretly film his movies, assuming he ever gets another one. Dennis Miller is reportedly being investigated for holding a bus hostage so he could have an audience. And, of course, young women are still urged to steer clear of Glen Beck, unless they have an armed chaperone.

They need to continue innovating and stop looking for someone to blame.

Radio forced talkies
Television forced technicolor and widescreen
Obviously this new market needs something better than they have at home once again, so 3D is the way to go. Some realize this, most don't.

Waterboard the bitch!

--Jack Valenti

in China and Eastern Europe every Album, Movie and Software package is available for a buck. You pay more, so their standard of living can rise and our national traitors can pocket windfall profits. Meanwhile, our leaders drool over their slave labor and kiss their banker's asses.

We used to be a competitive profitable economy. Now we're just a bunch of clueless spoiled brats to be taken advantage of. Capital is everything labor is nothing. The plan is working beautifully.

wish i had a lot more capital and did a lot less labor.

since when is bad taste a crime?

I don't have a problem with this bust, pirating and counterfeiting are huge problems. Thier losses are passed on to you and me. Anyway, I will bet she is a Urban American, she will get off easy.

the criminalization people who don't bother to heed the laws created by corporate greed is national fascist.

Maybe next time she will think twice before doing what she did.

"Maybe next time she will think twice before doing what she did"

YEAH!

Sincerely

John Mccain and GW Bush, copyright thieves

"created by corporate greed"

Yeah...how dare the owners of the copyright expect to own their property?

Murphy,

Do you expect us to believe you've never downloaded a crappy cam recording of a movie using Bittorrent to decide if it was worth spending 10 or 12 bucks to go see it at a theater?

The studios probably put the really crappy ones out there to promote their films.

Noone would go see a film based on the previews, would they?

And no one but some tight ass teabagger would be cheap enough to sit thru a whole shaky ass blurry cam copy of a film just to save money.

"Anyway, I will bet she is a Urban American"

How much are you willing to lose, you racist dumbfuck?

After all, that's why God created Netflix!!!

"the owners of the copyright "

In other words, not the artist that created the work, but the current "owner" of the work, most of whom are corporate parasites living off the work of dead artists.

"In other words, not the artist that created the work, but the current "owner" of the work"

What a pile of shit. You don't give a damn about the artists, otherwise you'd know in most of these cases, the artists still have residual agreements in their contracts. That, or you'd find a way to compensate the artists directly. Instead, you've never sent the creators a dime, and you pretend to rail against the corporate "owners", but as it turns out, the only thief in your equation is you. You don't want to compensate anyone, and so you hide behind the pretense you're standing up against 'the man'. Nothing could be further from reality.

" the artists still have residual agreements in their contracts."

You mean like those "artists" the Gershwin grandchildren? Those fuckers can write their own hit songs. The Founders had it right, 14 years with an additional 14 year renewal on copyrights. One could adjust that for changes in life expectancy and we might have a decent, fair system. The corporate protectionists would never agree to that, though.

"The corporate protectionists would never agree to that, though."

Stop hiding behind your skirt, and tell us how much you've sent directly to the 'creators' during your lifetime after you've stolen their work.

"You mean like those "artists" the Gershwin grandchildren?"

So if someone buys property, they can give it to their kids, but if they write royalty property, you think you should be able to steal it?

Got it: you're a thief-apologist.

Hey Dan,

Am I a thief if it watch a copyrighted show on broadcast tv on my DVR and skip past the commercials?

Of course not.

"Am I a thief if it watch a copyrighted show on broadcast tv on my DVR and skip past the commercials?"

Hell, you're a thief if you copied down lyrics from radio instead of buying the sheet music. Or ever used a reel to reel tape recorder. Or a video cassette recorder, or a DVR, etc., etc. The Media Cartel has opposed every technology that gives more power to the consumer, even though they usually profit from it.

"Stop hiding behind your skirt, and tell us how much you've sent directly to the 'creators' during your lifetime after you've stolen their work."

I've given thousands of dollars to "artists" in ticket purchases, lp purchases, cassette purchases, cd purchases, dvd purchases, etc. I wonder what percentage actually reached the artist.

"Hell, you're a thief if you copied down lyrics from radio instead of buying the sheet music."

Lie.

"Or ever used a reel to reel tape recorder."

Lie.

"Or a video cassette recorder, or a DVR, etc., etc."

Lie.

But what can you expect from a thief who hides behind the skirt of standing up to the corporate "man"?

darforth you are an idiot.

You can't own a song.

It's sophistry.

And the fact that many idiots like you buy that bullshit corporate propaganda is the reason that you have to have a room full of fucking lawyers to do anything.

Factually intellectual monopoly stifles creation.

Bittorrent

Aka Trojans R Us?

"You can't own a song"

Another ignoramus of history and law.

"intellectual monopoly stifles creation."

Do you similarly believe your property should be stolen at will?

"Lie.

But what can you expect from a thief who hides behind the skirt of standing up to the corporate "man"?"

Bullshit. The media cartel has opposed every technology that empowered the consumer, shill.

Fact!

"Bullshit. The media cartel has opposed every technology that empowered the consumer, shill."

That wasn't what I called lies, liar. All three statements of yours I listed as lies were untrue. You were then stuck with intellectual dishonesty by pretending the one thing I didn't call a lie was untrue.

Typical.

Hey Dan,

Just pulling your chain with my snarky question.

I make a very small part of my income from music, but it is all live performance stuff. Never did any commercial recordings so I wouldn't feel the pain of copyright losses there.

I signed away all the copyrights the shit loads of computer software I wrote for my employers prior to 1986 and to my clients since then. No loss there.

Armed Forces TV did a piece on me a while back and I had to sign away all rights to that, also.

I don't have a dog in this fight, you might say.

What is your personal interest?

"I've given thousands of dollars to "artists" in ticket purchases, lp purchases, cassette purchases, cd purchases, dvd purchases, etc."

Only because you couldn't steal them.

" Anyway, I will bet she is a Urban American, she will get off easy.
#8 | Posted by tickyul "

What is an "Urban American"? Someone that lives in an Urban area? Or do you mean a Black American? If so then I'll take that bet. Willing to go a grand on it?

And how about the loser just never posts on this forum again?

"What is your personal interest?"

I work alongside royalty artists, and know the majority of them aren't the rich stars people pretend. People think they're standing up to the corporate "man", when in reality it's the work-a-day musicians and performers who get hurt. Tom Hanks can afford it. Tom Neighbor can't.

" All three statements of yours I listed as lies were untrue. You were then stuck with intellectual dishonesty by pretending the one thing I didn't call a lie was untrue."

You're a liar. Hollywood opposed every one of those technologies and called it "stealing".

ok dan, now you are an imbecile.

It's true that kings of the past have tried to own music before, but noone outside of his sphere of influence cared. And that is the real issue: the power to kill those who disobey the king.

Theft of intellectual property is a man made fantasy.

Might as well say that anyone who uses the word 'gfdsuhdgfshijdgfsuhiadfsadgfs
kuhijadfskuhijadfsuohiadfskuhj
adfskuhjkuhijadfskuhjadfsknbhj
adgfsknbj' must pay me because I created it.

Pure corporate royal bullshit.

And the fact that americans threw out a king only to support this royal feces is a fucking embarrassment.

"Hollywood opposed every one of those technologies and called it "stealing"."

I never claimed they didn't. It was your OTHER three statements that were lies. You pretended I called a lie the one truth you told.

So...more intellectual dishonesty from Nullifidian. But I guess dishonesty is his strong suit.

I've given thousands of dollars to "artists" in ticket purchases, lp purchases, cassette purchases, cd purchases, dvd purchases, etc. I wonder what percentage actually reached the artist.

#25 | Posted by nullifidian

"Theft of intellectual property is a man made fantasy."

So Stephen King shouldn't own the books he wrote? You should be able to copy them and sell them at will? Or go into a concert with a recorder and sell bootleg copies at will?

"Pure corporate royal bullshit."

Write your own fucking song, you lazy ass.

"I wonder what percentage actually reached the artist."

That's between the artist and the producer. But you've downloaded, and not sent the artist a penny; so you're nothing but a poser as far as concern for "the artist".

fuck off asshole.

and yes, the public domain is where almost everything naturally belongs.

It takes a mafia to force people to do otherwise.

Just another bullshit human scam, that fucking morons like you love because you want someone to hold your leash. fucking bitch.

"the fact that americans threw out a king only to support this royal feces is a fucking embarrassment."

So when can I come over and steal your property?

bah. now you are just being intellectually dishonest fucking coward.

i suggest that you pay the man who created the word 'fucktard'. It's self descriptive.

"the public domain is where almost everything naturally belongs."

The vast majority of songs written since the dawn of time aren't copyrighted. Use one of them, that's fine. Otherwise, write your own song if you think it's worthless.

"Just another bullshit human scam"

You're free to work on a book and give it away, if you're that stupid. But some people actually believe writing is an honorable profession, and should be compensated.

But you've never answered: should others be able to come over to your place and steal what you've worked for?

"now you are just being intellectually dishonest fucking coward."

Says the would-be thief.

What do YOU make? Do you sell it, or give it away?

wrong.

It takes a mafia to force people to obey your bullshit scam.

Thus the onus on you to prove ownership.

And as i already proved, you can't own a song.

retard.

Pay the guy who invented that word too.

You are a thief.

I also suggest that retards like you pay the hospital where you were born, out of your own pocket.

fucking imbeciles have no no idea what they fuck they are talking about.

just soak up propaganda off the television.

"So Stephen King shouldn't own the books he wrote?"

Yes he should. For 14 years plus an extension--if requested--for another 14 years. It was good enough for the founders.

Or go into a concert with a recorder and sell bootleg copies at will?

Of course not. You should freely distribute bootlegs.

tough shit about the [former] property rights - - ELECTIONS HAVE CONSEQUENCES!

movies are the property of the collective group - - aka spreadin' da wealth . . .

from Hollywood according to their ability . . . to the home-gal cuz she needed werewolf footage

case closed

by Col Dan:
"But some people actually believe writing is an honorable profession, and should be compensated"
#46 | Posted by Danforth

U R A CAPITALIST PIG!

by Col Dan:
"But some people actually believe writing is an honorable profession, and should be compensated"
#46 | Posted by Danforth

U R A CAPITALIST PIG!

#53 | Posted by markh at 2009-12-05 06:56 PM | Reply | Flag Shoplifted his copy of "Going Rouge"

"And as i already proved, you can't own a song."

You didn't prove a thing.

Yes (Stephen King should own the books he wrote.) For 14 years plus an extension--if requested--for another 14 years. It was good enough for the founders.

Do you feel the same way about someone who makes a table, or buys a house? Should they only own it for 14 years, plus 14, or should they be able to pass the house down to their heirs?

My apologies, the first paragraph of post #56 should be in quotes. It was taken from post #50.

Again...sorry.

"And as i already proved, you can't own a song."

You didn't prove a thing.

#55 | Posted by Danforth

Yes he did, Danforth. He proved beyond a doubt that he is a lying, hypocritical, thieving sack of "Republican Base".

Hey RCADE can I use the term "Urban American" too without getting suspended? It's funnier than the N word.

Speaking of sacks of 'Republican Base', along come a steaming pile of FuckWad.

Happy Zappadan
_______________(BummerNacht)

"Anyway, I will bet she is a Urban American"

How much are you willing to lose, you racist dumbfuck?

#15 | Posted by DanTOILETFEEDERforth at 2009-12-05 04:43 PM | Reply | Flag:MIND READER

TO: DanTOILETFEEDERforth

I said nothing about race, so I think you need to examine how much YOU really cherish diversity. When I use the term Urban American, you don't know what I am thinking, but I know that you are thinking RACE.....Dumbfuck.

"Do you feel the same way about someone who makes a table, or buys a house? Should they only own it for 14 years, plus 14, or should they be able to pass the house down to their heirs?"

Well, dumbforth, a table can only be possessed by one person at a time. Thus, your question is moot.

Besides, that's what good old Thomas Jefferson and the founding goodfellas thought. Good enough for me.

" Anyway, I will bet she is a Urban American, she will get off easy.
#8 | Posted by tickyul "

What is an "Urban American"? Someone that lives in an Urban area? Or do you mean a Black American? If so then I'll take that bet. Willing to go a grand on it?

And how about the loser just never posts on this forum again?

#34 | Posted by johnnyLOVESSPERMFORhotsauce at 2009-12-05 06:07 PM | Reply | Flag: FOOL AND TOILETDOKEY

TO:johnnyLOVESSPERMFORhotsauce

Well, you are so smart, I guess you have already figured out what I mean. And I get the impression that you are the type who likes to make yourself feel important by expressing PHONY RIGHTEOUS ANGER. Are you a wigger?

Article I, Section 8, Clause 8 of the United States Constitution, known as the Copyright Clause, the Copyright and Patent Clause (or Patent and Copyright Clause), the Intellectual Property Clause and the Progress Clause, empowers the United States Congress:

"To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries."

Note that it says nothing about heirs of Authors and Inventors or corporations, or effectively permanent ownership. The operative clause is "To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts". Not to get rich. The assumption is that the expiration of the copyright is the incentive to produce new work. I don't think it is possible to incent Walt Disney to produce any new work at this point.

It is also the point that work should pass to the public domain so that others can improve on it and provide the "progress" referred to above.

What if Euclid had copyrighted the "triangle" and you had to pay royalties for any use of it?

"a table can only be possessed by one person at a time. Thus, your question is moot."

No it's not. A copyrighted song doesn't have to sell, but you want it to become public property after 28 years. Should the house, or the table, become public property after 28 years, or not?

"Note that it says nothing about heirs"

So if the creator dies a year after creating, does his wife get it, or are you wanting to steal it from her immediately?

"Note that it says nothing about heirs"

And the law has been changed since then. Would you similarly deny women the right to vote, or are you okay with that change?

"Besides, that's what good old Thomas Jefferson and the founding goodfellas thought. Good enough for me."

They also thought blacks were only 3/5th of a person. Good enough for you?

"And the law has been changed since then. Would you similarly deny women the right to vote, or are you okay with that change?"

Uh, the Constitution had to be amended to fix both of those problems. The same would be necessary for copyright to work the way you want it to. So, go ahead, get a constitutional amendment.

" but you want it to become public property after 28 years."

I'm perfectly willing to adjust it for the increase in life expectancy since 1786. Good enough for the founders, but obviously not good for corporate lobbyists.

" but you want it to become public property after 28 years."

Yes! As Jefferson proposed it, that was exactly the intent. In order to provide the incentive to create more new stuff. And to allow others the rights to improve on that which was already created.

"The same would be necessary for copyright to work the way you want it to."

Not true. Where in the Constitution does it specify the amount of time?

"Not true. Where in the Constitution does it specify the amount of time?"

It doesn't. It says that Congress can specify that. What it says is that it is to be "limited". You seem to want it to be "unlimited".

"In order to provide the incentive to create more new stuff."

Well, we've learned that's not needed: people create new stuff all the time. What's the matter...not creative enough?

"And to allow others the rights to improve on that which was already created."

So I should be able to turn Mickey Mouse into a porn star? Or a Democratic politician should be able to use a Ted Nugent song to get votes?

"You seem to want it to be "unlimited"."

No, life plus 75 years is fine by me.

the simple truth to these case is that every time the MPAA or RIAA goes after a 12 year old or a grandma or a college girl, they look like dipshit bullies.

The only succesfull strategy is for them to continue to hunt down and disable the distribution networks.

They shut down Torrentspy, They massively impaired Demonoid, Mininova is content distribution only now, the only major public tracker site that is still alive and kicking is the pirate bay and i believe its just a matter of time before they are brought to heel as well.

Once they have curbed Torrents they will have won a major victory over piracy. None of the individual cases could even be construed as much even when they do have a result that could be considered to be in the favor of the entertainment industry.

Each of these is a public relations nightmare and those who do pirate see them as a joke rather than as a deterrent.

"It doesn't. It says that Congress can specify that. "

Ahhh, so the Constitution wouldn't have to be amended. Thanks for admitting you were wrong.

and danforth, you are a twit, just do yourself a favor and unplug the keyboard.

"The only succesfull strategy is for them to continue to hunt down and disable the distribution networks. "

No it's not. One dies, ten more spring up.

"you are a twit"

Let me guess...you're a thief of others' property?

Ever downloaded a copywritten song without paying?

"So I should be able to turn Mickey Mouse into a porn star? Or a Democratic politician should be able to use a Ted Nugent song to get votes?"

Mickey Mouse, yes (Walt's long dead, and his descendants had nothing to do with creating Mickey). Ted Nugent, no (at least not without paying royalties).

"Ted Nugent, no (at least not without paying royalties)."

Why? He wrote the song more than 28 years ago.

"Mickey Mouse, yes "

So you actually believe anyone who wants should be able to use Mickey Mouse any way they want?

What about the Golden Arches....should I be able to advertise my highway eatery with their logo?

"do yourself a favor and unplug the keyboard."

It's a laptop, dumbshit.

The genie is out of the bottle with regard to Bittorrent. With distributed hash tables, there is no way to go after anyone for anything. You'd have to shut down the entire Internet to stop bittorrent at this point.

Music artists have pretty much written off record profits as a major profit source and rely mostly on public appearance gigs. Unfortunately the record companies haven't gotten the news yet and refuse to give up that revenue stream.

The movie studios have to make their big profits during the first run or on pre-sales of DVDs. BlueRay is a good profit maker for them and will continue until technology catches up and makes ripping and copying as trivial as it is with DVDs.
Their best bet is to crack down on pre-release copies of DVDs or better yet, only issue pre-release Blueray disks. This will keep the bootleggers and Bittorrent thieves at bay for a while.

"No, life plus 75 years is fine by me."

The key phrase in the Constitution is to "promote progress". Exactly what Progress is being promoted 75 years after the Author/Inventor is dead? This clause was written by Jefferson. You should read up on how it came about. The original idea of the founders was that there would be no "copyright" which was, in England, owned by the Crown. Jefferson wanted to unleash the creativity of a people by having a rich public domain to draw upon, and after profiting "for a limited time" from that creativity would contribute back to the public domain which made his "creation" possible in the first place.

"What about the Golden Arches....should I be able to advertise my highway eatery with their logo?"

Trademarks are different. The assumption is that the business will outlive the original creator, and that the business will still be able to benefit from the "brand". Patents are different, too. Do some reading.

"Why? He wrote the song more than 28 years ago"

Ok,then yes.

"Trademarks are different...Patents are different, too"

Huh? Why? Both are creative property.

And why shouldn't that Democratic politician be able to use that Ted Nugent song 29 years after it was written?

"Ok,then yes."

Really? 'Cause I think Ted would be pissed. I would be, too.

You can't "own" thoughts, just because you wrote them down.

"The assumption is that the business will outlive the original creator, and that the business will still be able to benefit from the "brand"."

So isn't Mickey Mouse a "trademark", or a "brand"?

"Huh? Why? Both are creative property."

Because they are different laws! The purpose of a trademark is entirely different than a copyright or patent.

So isn't Mickey Mouse a "trademark", or a "brand"?

If Disney has registered it as a trademark (which I imagine they have) then yes. But only because it is a trademark. Most things that are created are not. Again, trademark has a different purpose than copyright or patent.

"Exactly what Progress is being promoted 75 years after the Author/Inventor is dead?"

None at all. That's just a scam that benefits the media cartel--and their union sycophants, and impedes artistic innovation.

Clearly you are not going to acknowledge the fact that the public domain is more important to a nation, than the ability of individuals to derive the maximum profit from an idea.

I've got to go and do some other things now, so as Spud might say:

exit, stage left

For clarification, that was addressed to Danforth (who I find myself surprised at disagreeing with)

"You can't "own" thoughts, just because you wrote them down."

But you can "own" a drawing of two yellow-orange arches, because you drew them, yet not a mouse you drew?!?

"Clearly you are not going to acknowledge the fact that the public domain is more important to a nation, than the ability of individuals to derive the maximum profit from an idea."

If you want it bad enough, pay the rights to use it. If you don't want to pay the rights, create something of your own.

Ted Nugent is still alive. No one should be able to appropriate his sound for ideals Ted is against. That seems logical enough...yes?

But you can "own" a drawing of two yellow-orange arches, because you drew them, yet not a mouse you drew?!?

Yes, the same way a ranch can "own" the brand it uses on it's cows. It is a means of identifying a business, not something that contributes to the "progress" of Science and the useful Arts.

"... and impedes artistic innovation."

No it doesn't, it promotes artistic innovation. What you're taking about is artistic laziness. Want a song? Write one.

"Want a song? Write one."

Exactly. Want to profit off a song? Write one, leech.

"Want to profit off a song? Write one, leech."

We do. And then you steal them, proudly. And keep the owners from profiting, hypocrite.

tickyul, you're a big bad internet toughguy behind the keyboard calling people names and running your mouth about shit you know nothing about. Step out of the house and you are a little pussy who has to hide from the 5th grade girl who lives down the block else she kicks your ass when she sees you.

So anyway, what's up with that little bet you were looking for? I'll go up to a grand. In fact I'll pay out 2K if I'm wrong. Odds are in your favor tough guy. Or are you afraid to put your money where your mouth is?

The criminalization of IP transgressions is one of the main reasons Bill Clinton is a huge piece of shit.

Back in the good ole days this stuff made sense. To "bust" somebody for illegally copying your movie the copyright holder had to go after them in civil court. And they had to demonstrate actual economic harm, and could receive damages commensurate with that harm.

Now the Feds are obliged to pursue these "crimes" and there is no requirement to demonstrate economic harm.

Today the Feds are doing the RIAA/MPAA's dirty work. Instead of the FBI catching violent criminals, they're hunting downloaders. What a perversion of justice.

To sum up, violations of intellectual property rights are more judiciously addressed as a tort, not a crime.

Instead we have "Government of the corporations, by the corporations, for the corporations."

"It is a means of identifying a business"

You mean like Mickey Mouse?

"Instead of the FBI catching violent criminals, they're hunting downloaders."

So if I invented a universal key to your home, and stole your property, would you want law enforcement to come after me, or would the fact I invented a key to get in make it all okay?

"And they had to demonstrate actual economic harm"

If I own the copyright, and you've stolen the property without paying for the rights...well, call me silly, but I call that 'economic harm'. The money that should rightfully be in my pocket is instead in your pocket.

"Want to profit off a song? Write one, leech."

We do. And then you steal them, proudly. And keep the owners from profiting, hypocrite.

You're kidding, right? These days the writer of the song is not the one suffering economic harm when it is "stolen." Artists make their money on merch and touring. It's a guild system, practically the opposite of a free market, and far from equitable, especially for guild members.

Ever downloaded a copywritten song without paying?

All the time, but your argument is flawed in that I would never have paid for the song I "stole," I would have simply gone without.

Below is a link Spud provided earlier today. Exactly what did I steal when I clicked it? Is Spud a thief too? Is RCade a party to our criminality by providing this venue?

So if I invented a universal key to your home, and stole your property, would you want law enforcement to come after me, or would the fact I invented a key to get in make it all okay?

When you steal my property you deprive me of my material trappings.

When I copy your song I deprive you of nothing.

There's the rub.

P.S. I'm also amazed that I disagree with Danforth about something!

The vice is versa, Snoofy.

To reiterate, the problem I have with all this is criminalizing it. It should be the responsibility of the Guild to pursue those who break the Guild's rules. That is simply not the Government's business.

In point of fact the Guilds should be thankful the Government allows them to operate at all.

"When you steal my property you deprive me of my material trappings. When I copy your song I deprive you of nothing."

Money is nothing?!?

How do you think someone like Stephen King make money...largesse? If you steal his book electronically, is just like stealing from a bookstore. Both ways, King gets none of the money due him. Folks just do it because they have a reasonable expectation of getting away with it.

And with that 'money', he can buy material trappings.

There's the rub.

"It should be the responsibility of the Guild to pursue those who break the Guild's rules."

That's like saying it should be the responsibility of the diamond store owner to track down the diamond thieves.

"...your argument is flawed in that I would never have paid for the song I "stole," I would have simply gone without."

Ahhh...so you wanted it enough to steal it, just not enough to pay for it. Isn't that the rationalization of every thief?

"I do agree artists should be paid for their work. I (mostly) don't agree that paying publishers and other assorted middlemen is the way to do that."

So how often have you sent money to the artist of the song you illegally downloaded?

Or is it that all you're willing to pay is lip service?

"the Guilds should be thankful the Government allows them to operate at all."

What a pile of shit. Creators have been paid for their creations up until recently, when some people found a way to steal them easily.

"These days the writer of the song is not the one suffering economic harm when it is "stolen." Artists make their money on merch and touring."

You're dead wrong, and I know a lot of them. Again, the ones hurt aren't the Tom Hanks' of the world, they're the Joe Averages of the world, who don't qualify for health care that year, or get a pension credit. Folks like to pretend it's a victimless crime; it's not. The people being hurt are mostly regular, work-a-day artists. You're also making it impossible for a band like Steely Dan to exist, and telling the songwriter who wants to stay home with his family to get out on the road or go fuck himself. But since you don't see his face, you think that's okay. I can assure you, it's not...and I see their faces.

Let me ask you this, Danforth: Until about 1996 or so these matters were dealt with in civil courts.

Tell me, why did we criminalize this behavior? Have the publishing cartels fared better or worse since they foisted their obligation to protect their intellectual property interests on Joe Taxpayer?

So how often have you sent money to the artist of the song you illegally downloaded?

Or is it that all you're willing to pay is lip service?

To be fair, Danforth, I would have to send eighty-five cents to the Guild and fifteen cents to the artist. I know which beast I'm starving; it's the one that deserves to die.

Should I be able to buy a used CD? The artist nor the guild receive any recompense there. Should I be able to borrow a CD from the library? From a friend?

Was the Betamax decision wrong?

The other issue is not just the criminality, it's the extremely disproportionate penalty for the crime. If I steal a physical CD from WAL*MART I get what, probation maybe? If I "illegally" download a song I am liable for up to $250,000. You can't seriously stand in favor of this discongruity.

"Let me ask you this, Danforth: Until about 1996 or so these matters were dealt with in civil courts."

Digital music files and broadband changed the scope of piracy.

Before that it was bootlegging albums

"why did we criminalize this behavior? "

Stealing was always criminal.

"To be fair, Danforth, I would have to send eighty-five cents to the Guild and fifteen cents to the artist."

Nonsense...you could send a buck to the artist, or ten after you've illegally downloaded ten songs. But like I said, you've never paid anything to the artist but lip service.

Thier losses are passed on to you and me.

What losses? You are not going to get any quality out of a lousy digital camera. It's high time the RIAA got their head out of their ass. Being anal retentive is not a right. It's a social disease. The world didn't end for these blood suckers with VHS recorders either. Are they offering to refund your money if the movie sucks rocks? No way!

You're also making it impossible for a band like Steely Dan to exist, and telling the songwriter who wants to stay home with his family to get out on the road or go fuck himself. But since you don't see his face, you think that's okay. I can assure you, it's not...and I see their faces.

Well if their corporate overlords hadn't convinced Congress I was committing a felony, I might not have such a "Fuck You!" attitude towards their guild system.

They started this war, not me. Their response to emerging technology was to hide behind laws. Pure unadulterated reactionary thought. I will have no part of it.

The people being hurt are mostly regular, work-a-day artists.

Maybe then the labels should give them more than 15%. But that would cut into the budget for "media kits" and other useless guild bullshit.

You really want to get me going, let's talk about DVD Region Coding! :)

"Should I be able to buy a used CD? The artist nor the guild receive any recompense there."

They did the first time.

There was talk of requiring it; I always thought the idea was foolish; it was dropped.

"Their response to emerging technology was to hide behind laws."

Emerging technology?!? It was theft. If I find a way to teleport your possessions into my house, is that emerging technology?!?

dimforth just doesn't know when he's had it, but like his namesake he just can't close his hole.

Property itself is violence, but when the moronic public starts allowing the state to ration what words you are allowed to speak(under any guise), it is time for popular revolt.

A sad state the american people have left their empire in that you have to fight for the right to hear music without paying off the policia...

People like dim are just plain wrong, and this kind of mafia ownership of everything is exactly the kind of economic slavery that your jesus comic book character was railing against when he yelled at the banker junta.

sad...

"Maybe then the labels should give them more than 15%. "

Some do. But they get nothing from you. Strange, you pretending you want them to get more than 15%, when you're only willing to pay them 0%. If they agreed to whatever percentage, who are you to butt in? More likely, you're hiding behind that to justify the illegal downloading.

"Property itself is violence"

Shawn itself is idiocy.

"A sad state the american people have left their empire in that you have to fight for the right to hear music without paying "

Not hearing, dumbshit. Owning.

Nonsense...you could send a buck to the artist, or ten after you've illegally downloaded ten songs. But like I said, you've never paid anything to the artist but lip service.

The bulk of my CDs come from used CD stores, so the artist never made a dime off me in the first place.

So I suppose I stole from the artists when I bought those used CDs?

The reality is iTunes has sold billions of songs. People are willing to pay for a song they want. Unfortunately the RIAA was so freaked out about ones and zeros they left the average citizen no choice but to acquire the goods they wanted through the black market.

Their shortsightedness is their own undoing, and I refuse to accept an ethos which brands me a criminal because they are Luddites.

"You are not going to get any quality out of a lousy digital camera."

You could not be more wrong. Nowadays, pirates are using makeshift tripods, and -- get this -- hooking into the hard-of-hearing system to get crystal-clear sound.

"So I suppose I stole from the artists when I bought those used CDs?"

No, and I said as much the first time you asked.

If I find a way to teleport your possessions into my house, is that emerging technology?!?

If you find a way to copy all the possessions in my house, have you stolen anything from me?

""No, life plus 75 years is fine by me.""

So says the corporate shill. Well, it's not fine with the rest of us, so the rest of us will take matters into our own hands.

Download, baby, download. Bittorrent forever!

"they left the average citizen no choice"

Ahhhh...another rationalization for thievery. No choice? How about not taking what doesn't belong to you?

"the rest of us will take matters into our own hands"

Says the proud thief.

"If you find a way to copy all the possessions in my house, have you stolen anything from me?"

If you make money selling said copies, yes.

More likely, you're hiding behind that to justify the illegal downloading.

Correct me if I'm mistaken but the criminality of simply downloading a song is not established. Those who have had to, err, face the music have been punished for "making available" for others to download. And now the courts have even rejected the "making available" argument, but not until it snagged a few people.

Strange, you pretending you want them to get more than 15%, when you're only willing to pay them 0%. If they agreed to whatever percentage, who are you to butt in? More likely, you're hiding behind that to justify the illegal downloading.

You're probably right about that, except I don't think my downloading is illegal (see above). Just because they run a trailer at the start of the movie doesn't mean the law is actually on their side. Which is pretty hilarious considering they crafted the law!

"If you find a way to copy all the possessions in my house, have you stolen anything from me?"

If you make money selling said copies, yes.

So then, I can download all the songs I want, so long as I don't sell them? Glad we cleared that up, because that's exactly what I plan on doing.

"Ahhhh...another rationalization for thievery. "

Why do you keep calling the Founders thieves?

"Correct me if I'm mistaken but the criminality of simply downloading a song is not established"

You're mistaken. Individuals who have downloaded many songs have been prosecuted.

"Why do you keep calling the Founders thieves?"

Why do you lie like that? You pretend you're for copyrights, for 28 years like the Founding Fathers, yet you proudly announce you're going to steal from the holders of said copyrights. You're a hypocrite of the first degree.

"So then, I can download all the songs I want, so long as I don't sell them?"

No, you purposely misunderstood (I hope). Let's go back to Stephen King. Should you be able to download his new 1,000 page book if someone makes the file available, or does King actually own his creation? And if you bought one copy, does that give you the right to distribute it to millions for free?

"Why do you lie like that? You pretend you're for copyrights,"

Well, you can side with Disney and the rest of the sinister copyright cartel if you like, and I'll side with Thomas Jefferson, truth, justice, and the American way.

"I'll side with Thomas Jefferson, truth, justice, and the American way."

Priceless. You pretend you're for truth & justice as you steal.

You cannot make this shit up.

nullifidan is correct. the founding fathers revolted precisely BECAUSE of british royalties.

The populace didn't care until the redcoats started taking people away in the night and torturing them to death.

The fact that imbeciles like dimforth now support the very same kind of junta is quite revealing as to just how far the american empire has fallen.

Fucking embarrassing.

So Shawn...how long before you graduate middle school?

blow me dimforth.

"now support the very same kind of junta"

So paying 99 cents for a copyrighted song is the equivalent of torturing people to death?

Is it too early to give the Moron of the Month Award?

"Fucking embarrassing."

Yeah, but RCade lets you post anyway.

"blow me"

And Shorn has reached his intellectual limits.

"the public domain is where almost everything naturally belongs. "

Let's start with everything you own.

Legos included.

"You are a thief."

Too funny, coming from a moron defending people who steal.

Oh yeah i forgot.

You also need to pay the guy who invented the door FOR EVERY TIME YOU HAVE USED ONE.

Not to mention royalties for every other thing that you have used from the day you were born: the guy who invented the toilet, the first man to drink water, the first air breather(not to mention all that air that you never bothered to pay anyone for), the guy who invented concrete...

Someone created the first carpet! You haven't paid him royalties either you fucking thief.

cough up the cash or shut your hole thief!

"Correct me if I'm mistaken but the criminality of simply downloading a song is not established"

You're mistaken. Individuals who have downloaded many songs have been prosecuted.

Link? I'm not aware of anyone being successfully prosecuted for the sole act of downloading.

"Link? I'm not aware of anyone being successfully prosecuted for the sole act of downloading."

Try using Google on the intertubes:

"Not to mention royalties for every other thing that you have used from the day you were born"

Here's a hint: buy a dictionary, and look up the word copyright. You obviously don't have a clue.

The other reason that criminalization of this stuff is bad is examples like the Dmitry Sklyarov case.

Making tinkering with technology illegal is not how America achieved success in the world.

"The other reason that criminalization of this stuff is bad..."

But Stephen King doesn't sell one book, the business is selling copies of that book. He either owns what he wrote, or he doesn't. Which is it? If he owns what he created, and instead of buying a copy, someone steals it, it's criminal. We either have copyrights, or we don't. Should a songwriter only own his song until he plays it for the first time? Should a movie only make money until someone can copy it and resell it for his own gain? If I hold the exit door open at the cineplex and let a thousand strangers in, is that a crime? I mean...they were going to show the movie anyway....

"Making tinkering with technology illegal is not how America achieved success in the world."

You're confusing tinkering with technology with theft. Inventing a universal key that makes theft easy isn't "tinkering", it's ripping people off who deserve to get paid more, the more people want their product.

Dan don't worry nobody would dare try to bootleg any movie you ever appeared in. The acting is too bad.

"Dan don't worry nobody would dare try to bootleg any movie you ever appeared in."

They already have, dumbshit.

"examples like the Dmitry Sklyarov case."

You're joking, right? The guy gave a seminar on how to steal copyrighted material by breaking the protection codes, and "distributed" a product that could do it.

Wanna bet whether he sold it, or gave it away?

"The acting is too bad."

I'll be sure to tell my co-workers who won Oscars, Emmys, Tonys, and Golden Globes how you feel.

And btw...Nicole Kidman smells incredible.

A few of the main public torrent sites were being taken down this last week. They got to mininova.:[ That was where I got a copy of the otherwise unavailable Song Of The South.

"examples like the Dmitry Sklyarov case."

You're joking, right? The guy gave a seminar on how to steal copyrighted material by breaking the protection codes, and "distributed" a product that could do it.
Wanna bet whether he sold it, or gave it away?
#166 | Posted by Danforth at 2009-12-06 01:51 AM

Uh, craptastic "encryption" that a child can/has cracked. Fuck Adobe in the ear, always. No love.

"That was where I got a copy of the otherwise unavailable Song Of The South."

Otherwise unavailable?!?

"Uh, craptastic "encryption" that a child can/has cracked."

Riiiiiiight. That's why he was heading a seminar at DEF CON. Because children had cracked the encryption code.

So many want their movies like their healthcare -- paid for by someone else. How pathetic, yet predictable. I guess movies should be added to the other thread about 'Basic Civil Rights'.

if someone is taping a show for their own use I see absolutely nothing wrong with that, but if that person sells the tape to someone else, that's theft.

There is no way I can condone throwing someone in jail for recording anything for their personal use. I don't care if they used a professional 3ccd camcorder and the hearing impaired jacks. The artists and producers are only losing money if that recording gets sold.

"if someone is taping a show for their own use I see absolutely nothing wrong with that"

How do you tell, when they're in the movie theatre with a digital camcorder? Do you ask nicely, and if the Chinese guy says he's just doing it for his sick girlfriend at home, do you let him continue?

"Uh, craptastic "encryption" that a child can/has cracked."

Riiiiiiight. That's why he was heading a seminar at DEF CON. Because children had cracked the encryption code.
#171 | Posted by Danforth at 2009-12-06 02:15 AM

Yes, precisely. What is the average age of those con-goers? 14-40? You should really download a torrent of the lectures - IF there is still a public torrent site left.

Aside from the fact that Adobe had federal agents make their illegal "arrest" it was never a secure product to begin with.

Like most corporate software vendors Adobe takes the wrong tactic with the natural public innovations and shuts them down ASAP. FUCK Adobe.

"if someone is taping a show for their own use I see absolutely nothing wrong with that"

How do you tell, when they're in the movie theatre with a digital camcorder? Do you ask nicely, and if the Chinese guy says he's just doing it for his sick girlfriend at home, do you let him continue?
#174 | Posted by Danforth at 2009-12-06 02:22 AM

Have you ever seen a CAM version? They generally SUCK. This woman is arrested for the wrong reason - her "copy" is only "watchable" to someone totally infatuated and probably going to buy it anyhow.

"Yes, precisely. What is the average age of those con-goers? 14-40?"

And if they had already broken the code, what were they doing there?

"Adobe had federal agents make their illegal "arrest""

Link to the arrest being "illegal"?

"the natural public innovations"

You mean a Doctoral student in cryptology distributing materials that make it easy to steal Adobe's encrypted material? That's a natural public innovation?!?

"and shuts them down ASAP"

Gee...I can't understand why. Just because someone was distributing something that could bankrupt the company? What poor sports....

I'm sure if someone on your block was distributing a copy of your garage door opener, you'd be all for that...right?

"Have you ever seen a CAM version? They generally SUCK."

1. Not anymore. Read #133.

2. By the time the buyer realizes it's a Cam version, the seller is gone.

"This woman is arrested for the wrong reason"

WTF? She's in a first-run movie with a digital camcorder recording the movie.

Tell us: do you allow people to take your work product for free?

"and probably going to buy it anyhow"

Proof?

"Have you ever seen a CAM version? They generally SUCK."

1. Not anymore. Read #133.
2. By the time the buyer realizes it's a Cam version, the seller is gone.

"This woman is arrested for the wrong reason"

WTF? She's in a first-run movie with a digital camcorder recording the movie.
Tell us: do you allow people to take your work product for free?
#178 | Posted by Danforth at 2009-12-06 02:43 AM

Buyer? What are you talking about? CAM versions distributed as torrents aren't "bought" - no money exchanged. You are thinking this 23 year old taking a crappy CAM copy of a crappy film is intent on manufacturing copies and selling them? To whom? Where? To her little sister? Get real!

Imo, it would be a lot easier to release your own crappier-than-for-purchase versions than to stop people from hiding their tiny technology and ripping it from a theater experience. I've always suggested this as the better method than suing these young people who are merely sharing with friends and family.

And btw...Nicole Kidman smells incredible.

#167 | Posted by Danforth

You must have worked at her dry cleaners because you aren't fit to be the grip on one of her films.

"Buyer? What are you talking about"

What...you didn't know there are bootleg copies of movies that are sold?

"CAM versions distributed as torrents aren't "bought""

Who said it was going to be distributed as torrents?

"You are thinking this 23 year old taking a crappy CAM copy of a crappy film is intent on manufacturing copies and selling them?"

Oh, I get it...you're clairvoyant. You can tell she's just doing it for her own use.

"Imo, it would be a lot easier to release your own crappier-than-for-purchase versions"

And what would you charge? My bet is it would be more than they're willing to pay.

"this as the better method than suing these young people who are merely sharing with friends and family."

Yeah...at least that was what that nice Chinese guy told you. You believed him, didn't you? Him being hard-of-hearing, and all....

"and probably going to buy it anyhow"

Proof?
#179 | Posted by Danforth at 2009-12-06 02:44 AM

LOGICALLY, since her group of friends were there they will probably buy it or have it gifted them for the shared experience. Moreso, it's known that people who fileshare buy more music than those who do not. You don't make mix CD's - they should be kept illegal? Can you calculate how much loss the movie and music industry need to recover from illegal file sharing versus physical piracy?

"You must have worked at her dry cleaners because you aren't fit to be the grip on one of her films."

Jealous punk, aren't you?

Have you gone on any more blogs pretending to be me, my bitch?

No Idea what you are talking about. Must be your imagination.

"LOGICALLY, since her group of friends were there"

Again, you have to be clairvoyant. Recording copywritten material without the right to do it is illegal. She wasn't recording her friends, she was recording the movie.

"Moreso, it's known that people who fileshare buy more music than those who do not."

So what are you saying...that should be some cold comfort to the artist being ripped off? Tell me...was the digicam bought, or stolen? How about the iPod...purchased, or taken?

"Can you calculate how much loss the movie and music industry need to recover from illegal file sharing versus physical piracy?"

Yes...I see the numbers. Song buying has been dropping precipitously for years (even in nominal dollars), and in 2008, 95% of all downloaded copywritten songs were downloaded illegally.

"Buyer? What are you talking about"

What...you didn't know there are bootleg copies of movies that are sold?

"CAM versions distributed as torrents aren't "bought""

Who said it was going to be distributed as torrents?

"You are thinking this 23 year old taking a crappy CAM copy of a crappy film is intent on manufacturing copies and selling them?"

Oh, I get it...you're clairvoyant. You can tell she's just doing it for her own use.

"Imo, it would be a lot easier to release your own crappier-than-for-purchase versions"

And what would you charge? My bet is it would be more than they're willing to pay.

"this as the better method than suing these young people who are merely sharing with friends and family."

Yeah...at least that was what that nice Chinese guy told you. You believed him, didn't you? Him being hard-of-hearing, and all....
#182 | Posted by Danforth at 2009-12-06 03:02 AM

You are still not getting the whole picture - this girl was not going to manufacture copies and probably doesn't have the equipment for that type of endeavor. Those who do, most certainly won't be caught with a CAM amid a group of kids in a rented theater. They get screener DVD's.

No charge for the crappy data-only distro - this means that people who fileshare first-releases will only have the shitty quality, and those who really want the movie will still probably buy it. "Try before you buy" model - and for what it's worth, most of the filesharing community are divided into those two groups.

Danforth, Gitarts operated a server where APC members stored hundreds of thousands of song files, the DOJ alleged.

That's why they went after him. He was not a "casual downloader."

"No Idea what you are talking about."

You're such a liar, and a bad one at that. You admitted it, on this very blog, nimrod.

Danforth is delusional.

"I maintain that downloading per se is not illegal."

You have the right to be wrong:

"LOGICALLY, since her group of friends were there"

Again, you have to be clairvoyant. Recording copywritten material without the right to do it is illegal. She wasn't recording her friends, she was recording the movie.

"Moreso, it's known that people who fileshare buy more music than those who do not."

So what are you saying...that should be some cold comfort to the artist being ripped off? Tell me...was the digicam bought, or stolen? How about the iPod...purchased, or taken?

"Can you calculate how much loss the movie and music industry need to recover from illegal file sharing versus physical piracy?"

Yes...I see the numbers. Song buying has been dropping precipitously for years (even in nominal dollars), and in 2008, 95% of all downloaded copywritten songs were downloaded illegally.
#186 | Posted by Danforth at 2009-12-06 03:08 AM

You're understanding of the community rational appears to be mainly adversarial - so, to put it in your legal language "you will lose". There is ZERO chance of stopping distribution of copywritten material, I'm merely explaining it's factual value and a possible ability to harmonically enjoin the creative community. Profit is not my interest, but I understand that it's yours. To stop the sharing of digital data you will disengage all digitization of copywritten material. Otherwise, you will need to think outside of your box.

"Danforth is delusional."

Jackass is a liar, and forever my bitch. Here are prior posts:

"I never signed on as you Danforth. Get it through your thick skull."
~Jackass, aka Messiah, aka Hardcore, aka Rastaninnja

Interesting you would use that particular phrase... "get it through your thick skull". because I found a very interesting cache:

"Get it through your thick skull, you are not the focus of my investigation. There is a rhyme to my reason and it won"t be unveiled until a later date. Victory isn"t a one day process it takes weeks to develop and sometimes months"
---A self-destruct email, sent to me by Messiah (Rastaninja) (Jackass)

"Danforth how about showing a little class and quit insulting me when I haven't done anything to you. You obviously don't have a clue as to what I'm trying to do."
Posted by Messiah at 2008-06-27 02:19 PM

"Danforth I was trying to get some information. I used your name to trigger a response. I didn't even pick your name. I was told by somebody else to use it."
Posted by Messiah at 2008-06-27 02:29 PM

You're a pussy, a liar, and a coward. You will always be my bitch, bitch. I own you. Now dance.

"so, to put it in your legal language "you will lose". "

Oh, I'm fairly certain of that. Just as I'm certain it's thievery. You paid for the iPod, you paid for the speakers, you paid for the headphones...but you stole the music. Because you could. And your answer is to wag your finger and say "you'll never catch me".

Excuse me if I'm left with nothing but contempt.

"Profit is not my interest, but I understand that it's yours"

My interest is more health care, and rent, and kids' braces. You know, the stuff you're ripping off from people just like you, who had the misfortune to create something you wanted enough to steal, but not enough to pay for.

"Otherwise, you will need to think outside of your box."

You're right. I think I'll concentrate on a universal garage door opener. That would be okay with you...wouldn't it?

"examples like the Dmitry Sklyarov case."

You're joking, right? The guy gave a seminar on how to steal copyrighted material by breaking the protection codes, and "distributed" a product that could do it.

It was a seminar on how to get around the piss-poor encryption. When that is done for theft, the theft itself is a crime. Before then, it's not. There are endless legal scenarios where one might want to decrypt something. Furthermore, I have the right to do many things with something I bought. I can give it to you. I could throw it out. I could resell it. And I could make a backup copy, and to do so I must first decrypt it.

Your argument is akin to "People don't kill people, guns kill people. So let's make guns illegal."

Is it a crime to know the algorithm that reveals the code to a Master combination lock based on the serial number? Is it a crime to share that information? No, the crime happens when that knowledge is put to nefarious use. Or how about the one where a Kyrptonite bike lock could easily be defeated with a ball-point pen. Was sharing that information a crime? You're really heading down a slippery slope when you criminalize knowledge. That's where these cartel protectionist measures go too far. Like I said, this was being handled perfectly fine in civil courts.

As for garage door openers, yours likely will work on a few of your neighbor's garages. Drive around clicking it someday! And your car keys will work in a few other cars out there too. Is telling you that a crime? No, the crime is when you use that knowledge to steal cars or pilfer garages.

I could see a few exceptions for national security, police work, etc. Not for Adobe. Not for any private sector entity actually.

"so, to put it in your legal language "you will lose". "

Oh, I'm fairly certain of that. Just as I'm certain it's thievery. You paid for the iPod, you paid for the speakers, you paid for the headphones...but you stole the music. Because you could. And your answer is to wag your finger and say "you'll never catch me".
Excuse me if I'm left with nothing but contempt.
#194 | Posted by Danforth at 2009-12-06 03:19 AM

DUDE, it's not about "catching" but about making the data more exclusive prior to it's consumer release. I don't want to remove jobs from the creative community, but create a more secure economic incentive through logical methods such as pre-released versions and DVD add-ons.

"Profit is not my interest, but I understand that it's yours"

My interest is more health care, and rent, and kids' braces. You know, the stuff you're ripping off from people just like you, who had the misfortune to create something you wanted enough to steal, but not enough to pay for.
#195 | Posted by Danforth at 2009-12-06 03:22 AM

I'm sorry I come off like a cheap fuck, you've got every right to be upset, but the atmosphere shouldn't be about you being predated upon. Consider how many people wanted to see "Capitalism" - there were 22 alleged CAM releases it's first week out - none of them were valid. Lions Gate paid to deceive the filesharing community and it worked for about a week. If they were to release a crappy full copy they wouldn't have had to worry about competing with a "higher quality" CAM or telesync.

"It was a seminar on how to get around the piss-poor encryption."

If it was piss-poor, why would anyone need a seminar?

"When that is done for theft, the theft itself is a crime. Before then, it's not. "

So would you be okay with it if I invented a universal door opener, and opened everyone's front door, as long as I didn't take anything myself?

"No, the crime is when you use that knowledge to steal cars or pilfer garages."

Good to know you believe taking property that doesn't belong to you is a crime. Does that go for copyrighted music as well?

"it's not about "catching" but about making the data more exclusive prior to it's consumer release."

You're deluding yourself. Whatever is created, will be stolen.

"but the atmosphere shouldn't be about you being predated upon."

All due respect...why? You're ripping me off, and ripping my friends off, and you're telling me I shouldn't be pissed? Gee...how conciliatory of you.

"If they were to release a crappy full copy..."

Wow...there's an answer...release shit. Again, for what price? Because as music has taught us, a buck is too much.

Why do I get the feeling these folks would steal the iPod and the Camcorder as well, if they thought they could get away with it?

"DUDE, it's not about "catching""

Sure it is. If stealing the music were treated the same as stealing the iPod, you wouldn't do it.

Danforth, re: Thomas-Rasset case: You think justice was served with a $2M verdict? That's on par with a wrongful death award. Who'd she kill?

Good to know you believe taking property that doesn't belong to you is a crime. Does that go for copyrighted music as well?

No, I think it should be a tort. Because I have not physically deprived anyone of anything. Show I harmed you, and you'll win in court.

There are degrees. If I open your garage door, that's not as bad as if I open your garage door and steal something.

Sure it is. If stealing the music were treated the same as stealing the iPod, you wouldn't do it.

Stealing music is treated far worse than stealing the iPod. That's the problem with the current laws. Stealing an iPod isn't a felony, but this woman is facing felony charges for what you consider the equivalent crime. See what's wrong there?

Snoofy,

Why is it you never answer any questions of mine? Try #200.

"You think justice was served with a $2M verdict?"

Why...do you think she had no idea what she was doing was illegal?

"That's on par with a wrongful death award."

And what if it could be shown some artist didn't make enough to qualify for health care that year because her illegal downloads prevented the guy from getting enough royalties to meet the threshold?

"Show I harmed you, and you'll win in court."

You took my copyrighted property without compensating me, and that's not harm? On what planet?

"Stealing an iPod isn't a felony, but this woman is facing felony charges for what you consider the equivalent crime. See what's wrong there?"

You're WAY off. Add up all the prices for what she stole. That's felony theft.

"There are degrees. If I open your garage door, that's not as bad as if I open your garage door and steal something."

You didn't answer the question: if I invent a universal front-door opener, and go down every street in your city, unlocking all the front doors, and announce that fact to the world, have I committed a crime, even if I personally don't take anything?

"It was a seminar on how to get around the piss-poor encryption."

If it was piss-poor, why would anyone need a seminar?
#199 | Posted by Danforth at 2009-12-06 03:30 AM

Clearly you have never been to a convention or appreciate how a community operates. Just like cars people like to modify their other toys and the conventions are perfect for hooking up with similar-minded people. The joy of community is what Adobe predated upon, and the public arrest with federal officers makes it even more apparent who works for whom.

"it's not about "catching" but about making the data more exclusive prior to it's consumer release."

You're deluding yourself. Whatever is created, will be stolen.

"but the atmosphere shouldn't be about you being predated upon."

All due respect...why? You're ripping me off, and ripping my friends off, and you're telling me I shouldn't be pissed? Gee...how conciliatory of you.

"If they were to release a crappy full copy..."

Wow...there's an answer...release shit. Again, for what price? Because as music has taught us, a buck is too much.
Why do I get the feeling these folks would steal the iPod and the Camcorder as well, if they thought they could get away with it?
#201 | Posted by Danforth at 2009-12-06 03:40 AM

Alright, let's just stalemate that we're equally "deluded". I'm not attempting to validate anything other than the fact that digitization is the weak point allowing anyone with a digital storage device to encrypt their own copy. Different formats make for different quality.

Imo you are stuck in a very restrictive mindset - "theft" of data = theft of "money". Again, to understand the community you might need to participate. Most people do not want to remove money from those who deserve it. The data wilderness let's us decide for ourselves if that's valid. Shortcut - make your own OFFICIAL crappy copy to freely distribute thereby omitting those who predate through piracy. If the movie is good enough you will not have to worry about sales impacted through those idiots who actually purchase a crappy pirated version. Most people want the real deal and with all of the DVD goodies included. You are not aware the ratio of blue ray filesharing has increased dramatically - and they are quite large. So, it's a small community who really want to rip-off the best quality good movies, the rest of us want to BUY ours.

You could also offer different ways to shape bandwidth without impeding general use. If the movie industry were to change it's manner the community would respond, even during our current economic travesty.

"Alright, let's just stalemate that we're equally "deluded"."

I'm not deluded at all. People who would never steal an iPod have no compunction about stealing the music to go on that iPod. By doing that, you're ripping off me and my friends, and costing them health care, and rent, and education for their kids. No delusion at all: I'm quite aware of the devastation, all because someone opened all the front doors.

"Imo you are stuck in a very restrictive mindset - "theft" of data = theft of "money"."

No, theft of copyrighted property = theft of money. But look at how you have to term it to justify the theft: you're not stealing my property, you're stealing "data".

"Again, to understand the community you might need to participate."

So I won't fully know until I steal from someone else?

"Most people do not want to remove money from those who deserve it."

Bullshit. You have no idea if the owners "deserve" it or not. In fact, by your wanting it, they "deserve" to be compensated.

"Shortcut - make your own OFFICIAL crappy copy to freely distribute"

For free? Wow...that'll solve all the problems, won't it? And do us a favor...you work for free, too, okay? Just to make it even.

"If the movie is good enough you will not have to worry about sales impacted" "Most people want the real deal and with all of the DVD goodies included."

You're naive. Besides CAM copies, there are also pristine thefts as well. If the DVD is manufactured in China, you can bet more copies will be run, all the goodies included. Regardless, that's a bogus argument...if the movie is good enough?!? And if not...what...good enough to steal, just not good enough to buy?

"it's a small community who really want to rip-off the best quality good movies, the rest of us want to BUY ours."

Music proves you wrong. 95% were illegally downloaded last year. Movies are next.

"If the movie industry were to change it's manner the community would respond, even during our current economic travesty."

Nonsense. Create a ten-foot fence, and they'll create an 11-foot ladder.

"Alright, let's just stalemate that we're equally "deluded"."

I'm not deluded at all. People who would never steal an iPod have no compunction about stealing the music to go on that iPod. By doing that, you're ripping off me and my friends, and costing them health care, and rent, and education for their kids. No delusion at all: I'm quite aware of the devastation, all because someone opened all the front doors.

By not taking anything but your legal "property rights" into account you are ignoring the reality of the conundrum. Again, people generally don't want to take money away from artists - people generally collect their film and music for very opposite reasons. Just an observation.

"Imo you are stuck in a very restrictive mindset - "theft" of data = theft of "money"."

No, theft of copyrighted property = theft of money. But look at how you have to term it to justify the theft: you're not stealing my property, you're stealing "data".

No, it's data. All of it. From whom takes what, to how often - which then indicates whom they are more likely to spend money on. That is information that qualifies as data, but it's also personal and sold via data mines to corporations with interests. When you look into the future people are sharing their data rather than their LP collection. There are many commercials showing people sharing music via phones and iPod lists - it's mandatory because of it's incredible popularity. What this means is that involving yourself in the obvious data-trading structure is to understand it's use as well as abuses such as the non-obvious things I've mentioned. The reason we don't have live video via cellular phones is because the carriers refuse to allow us that much bandwidth. The lesser-technology strategy is to slow it's progress to maximize profit. This is increasingly a failing mechanism.

"Again, to understand the community you might need to participate."

So I won't fully know until I steal from someone else?

Until you immerse yourself in the skin of the "perp" - in this instance a 23 year old girl making a risky CAM for her little sister. Do it. What do you feel? Like making that your profession? Not friggin' likely.

"Most people do not want to remove money from those who deserve it."

Bullshit. You have no idea if the owners "deserve" it or not. In fact, by your wanting it, they "deserve" to be compensated.

Somehow I knew this would be your argument. Let me be clear - I don't understand the layers of legal protection involved, but they aren't very effective, regardless their high costs. The artists often feel screwed by their contracting - perhaps this relationship is also at risk from internet? Perhaps fewer people will require distribution from a major label and don't give a crap who copies their art? Do you imagine those artists are freely copied or by force? The point is they penetrate a lot further as a competitive internet model. We're discussing data, not CD's, so imo you need to think about data distribution techniques, not standard manufacturing and sales.

"Shortcut - make your own OFFICIAL crappy copy to freely distribute"

For free? Wow...that'll solve all the problems, won't it? And do us a favor...you work for free, too, okay? Just to make it even.

YES, that data goes further because there is more access. Incentivize it with a prologue explaining the goodies the real-deal provides, use a relevant voice over or a cameo and it STAYS in the digital release. Make something that intelligently encourages people to buy an original. Hell, give a ratings site for pre-releases and make accurate sales predictions. Crap movies will still be known as crap and good movies will still have a popularity market.

"If the movie is good enough you will not have to worry about sales impacted" "Most people want the real deal and with all of the DVD goodies included."

You're naive. Besides CAM copies, there are also pristine thefts as well. If the DVD is manufactured in China, you can bet more copies will be run, all the goodies included. Regardless, that's a bogus argument...if the movie is good enough?!? And if not...what...good enough to steal, just not good enough to buy?

Most of the pirated bootlegs are overseas. Imo, you will need to understand those cultural dynamics to encourage better economic participation.

"it's a small community who really want to rip-off the best quality good movies, the rest of us want to BUY ours."
Music proves you wrong. 95% were illegally downloaded last year. Movies are next.

You are not weighing the losses across the board - all sales are down and many people aren't even celebrating Christmas with gifts this year. Time will tell us which direction the consumer will spend money toward - data ownership (DVD's CD's, books) or data management (phones and computers).

"If the movie industry were to change it's manner the community would respond, even during our current economic travesty."

Nonsense. Create a ten-foot fence, and they'll create an 11-foot ladder.
#208 | Posted by Danforth at 2009-12-06 04:26 AM

The general feel toward the record industry that sues the public is "distrust and resentment". This legal precedent is killing the industry, not data theft, imo.

"Again, people generally don't want to take money away from artists"

And you actually believe you're not? Are you really that self-delusional?

"No, it's data."

NO, IT'S COPYRIGHTED INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY. If you remove the latest Stephen King book from the bookstore without paying, that's theft. You're pretending if you find a way to take a digital copy from Amazon, you're only taking data. That's nothing but a lame justification to assuage your conscience.

" in this instance a 23 year old girl making a risky CAM for her little sister. Do it. "

Do it? Just steal from an artist? Fuck you. And you have no way of knowing what the usage is going to be. Again, she's not recording her friends, she's recording the movie.

"I don't understand the layers of legal protection involved, but they aren't very effective"

Exactly why you don't steal the iPod...you might get caught. That just makes you a chickenshit opportunistic thief.

"The artists often feel screwed by their contracting"

So what? That's there choice, not yours, and they signed the contract. Plus, it exposes your hypocrisy: you pretend you care for the artist, but your reimbursement model is nonexistent. You whine about 15%, yet your offer is 0%.

"Incentivize it with a prologue explaining the goodies the real-deal provides"

And then they'll steal the real deal, just like you do.

"Make something that intelligently encourages people to buy an original."

Why, when they can steal if for free?

"Most of the pirated bootlegs are overseas."

So? Too many are here. A warehouse in LA was recently busted.

"Imo, you will need to understand those cultural dynamics to encourage better economic participation."

Yeah...they like to steal stuff, too.

"You are not weighing the losses across the board - all sales are down"

iPod sales are up (look at Apple's stock over the last few years), and music downloads are up...just not legal ones.

"The general feel toward the record industry that sues the public is "distrust and resentment". "

Of course. If you're about to steal from someone, first you dehumanize them.

"not data theft"

There you go again, pretending you're just stealing "data" instead of someone's health care or rent. Dehumanize.

"there choice" = their choice

"Again, people generally don't want to take money away from artists"
And you actually believe you're not? Are you really that self-delusional?

That isn't the argument - the sales model has been changing perpetually, the digitization and sharing of copywritten art has been inevitable. How you succeed in making it a cyclically profitable and healthily growing model is part of the nature in recognizing the potential advantages of digital market penetration. It's unfortunate that there appears to be no moral equivalent in your eyes, thus everyone, including other artists, are your competition. Imo, sharing data makes it travel much further than you might be able to profit monetarily from.

"No, it's data."
NO, IT'S COPYRIGHTED INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY. If you remove the latest Stephen King book from the bookstore without paying, that's theft. You're pretending if you find a way to take a digital copy from Amazon, you're only taking data. That's nothing but a lame justification to assuage your conscience.

I'm trying to help you understand the transitory nature of digitized data and it's potential uses, not how to DOS attack Amazon because you don't like a particular artists views or to pirate digital copies to upset competitive sales. Nobody wants their favorite artists to stop their careers but artist have a different role now. More directly, as an artist you can't assume that digital copies are BAD for you just because your corporate owner tells you it is.

" in this instance a 23 year old girl making a risky CAM for her little sister. Do it. "
Do it? Just steal from an artist? Fuck you. And you have no way of knowing what the usage is going to be. Again, she's not recording her friends, she's recording the movie.

Put it back in your pants - I'm not here to fight. And I do have a very good idea how that data will be put to use. If you had sense enough to just make an account with a private service you might see for yourself that I'm not justifying behavior, but clarifying it for you.

"I don't understand the layers of legal protection involved, but they aren't very effective"
Exactly why you don't steal the iPod...you might get caught. That just makes you a chickenshit opportunistic thief.

What I meant is that you are telling me record executives have a legal right to their share of the artists endeavors. The artists do not own their art and those who do profit. Who's the opportunist thief?

"The artists often feel screwed by their contracting"
So what? That's there choice, not yours, and they signed the contract. Plus, it exposes your hypocrisy: you pretend you care for the artist, but your reimbursement model is nonexistent. You whine about 15%, yet your offer is 0%.

Much more people can get access to music, books and movies that would otherwise be unavailable to them due to economic, educational, physical or legal limitations. I offer you %100 penetration, it's up to you to make a product that inspires loyalty.

"Incentivize it with a prologue explaining the goodies the real-deal provides"
And then they'll steal the real deal, just like you do.

My personal policy is to avoid the first-run movies. It's an honor system, yes.

"Make something that intelligently encourages people to buy an original."
Why, when they can steal if for free?

You still don't understand the nature of the collector, enthusiast or fan. [sigh] I know a guy who purchased many cassette bootlegs (ie pirated) of Greatful Dead concerts - well over 60. The only reason he got access to them is because there is a community of other fans who share and sell them. Digital realm limits the pirate profiteering and maximizes common distribution.

"Most of the pirated bootlegs are overseas."
So? Too many are here. A warehouse in LA was recently busted.

Those people are allegedly the real issue? Physical copies made from digital? Then stop arresting everyone else and focus on those distributors.

"Imo, you will need to understand those cultural dynamics to encourage better economic participation."
Yeah...they like to steal stuff, too.

What I mean is that China has a very different attitude toward copywrite and you will probably need to act in accordance with that knowledge.

"You are not weighing the losses across the board - all sales are down"
iPod sales are up (look at Apple's stock over the last few years), and music downloads are up...just not legal ones.

As I said, people are less willing to respect copywrite if they see it as a personal attack. Stop suing regular non-pirates and release your own versions to encourage a healthy relationship.

"The general feel toward the record industry that sues the public is "distrust and resentment". "
Of course. If you're about to steal from someone, first you dehumanize them.

I can't understand your logic here - the girl in this story isn't a pirate, doesn't manufacture copies and has a good deal better reason to feel dehumanized by such petty copywrite law "enforcement".

"not data theft"
There you go again, pretending you're just stealing "data" instead of someone's health care or rent. Dehumanize.
#211 | Posted by Danforth at 2009-12-06 05:27 AM

You are right - theft is theft. Would you rather encourage people to willingly steal or willingly share? Why is the language different - intention. How can the artist maximize profit? Perhaps by not going through a losing model such as the current one.

Add up all the prices for what she stole. That's felony theft.

She was convicted of "stealing" 24 songs. Songs that cost ~99 cents on iTunes. Twenty bucks, two million dollars.

You think you can name a starving artist in the list of songs she "stole?" Good luck with that!

"That's on par with a wrongful death award."

And what if it could be shown some artist didn't make enough to qualify for health care that year because her illegal downloads prevented the guy from getting enough royalties to meet the threshold?

Holy shit, you are conflating this into health care? What the fux? We both know single payer is the way to go, I'm sort of dumbfounded you try to turn this into a Simpsons "What about the children?!" argument.

You support a $2M judgment against anyone who has violated IP? Every college student will be in debtor's prison.

-----

I realize you have a dog in this race, so to speak. And I appreciate it's easy to "steal" from an artist I don't know. But these laws are cockeyed.

I have downloaded artists I never even knew existed. Whose livelihood has been diminished, exactly? Where is the harm?'

I suspect, for the "consumer," this boils down to a "Do people who've never heard of Jesus go to Hell for denying Him?" reductio ad absurdum. As I said earlier, this is not an ethos in which I will participate.

However you are free to forward this conversation to The Authorities and turn me in for IP Violations. Is that the world you want?

"Imo, you will need to understand those cultural dynamics to encourage better economic participation."
Yeah...they like to steal stuff, too.
Oh... "they." GG. :)

Region Coding was invented specifically to address these "cultural dynamics."
Should it be a crime for me to figure out a way around that roadblock?

There you go again, pretending you're just stealing "data" instead of someone's health care or rent. Dehumanize.

Look, I just stole $25,000 dollars by posting this link!

danforth needs to pay the man who created the 1 and 0.

What a fucking thief!

OK so, I get it, it's wrong to pirate movies. What's even more diabolical is reduction of quality in viewing those pirate movies.

I wonder though... While Chicago's finest where thwarting her evil plan to pirate, how many robberies and muggings and gang related shootings took place? No need to worry about that I suppose. Thank goodness they stopped this mastermind criminal and protected the creative rights of the Summit Entertainment.
I shutter to think what would come of this world without Big Hollywood movie productions...

All Dimforth has against me is baseless attacks. Rex squashed him in a debate at the former PWZ and now he holds it against me. I'm not Rex. Debate him again and quit making up lies and fictitious posts up about me.

" the digitization and sharing of copywritten art has been inevitable. "

Again, look at your terms. You don't call it "stealing", you call it "sharing". And don't call it what it is, someone's legal property, you call it data. You can't handle the truth.

"It's unfortunate that there appears to be no moral equivalent in your eyes"

Translation: it's unfortunate you won't just bend over and smile while I steal from you.

"Imo, sharing data makes it travel much further than you might be able to profit monetarily from."

Travel further?!? And that's supposed to comfort the artist when they don't get health care?

" Nobody wants their favorite artists to stop their careers but artist have a different role now."

Riiiiiiiight. Their "role" is to be the target of thieves.

" as an artist you can't assume that digital copies are BAD for you just because your corporate owner tells you it is."

I have no corporate owner. And you're trying to tell me being ripped off isn't bad for me. All due respect, go fuck yourself.

"I do have a very good idea how that data will be put to use."

When the person is in the moviehouse recording on a digital camcorder? No, you don't. You have absolutely no idea what the end use will be, and pretending you do is bullshit.

"What I meant is that you are telling me record executives have a legal right to their share of the artists endeavors. The artists do not own their art and those who do profit."

But the artist freely entered in that contract, in exchange for what they thought was so valuable, they agreed. Who are you to tell them what contract to sign?

"Who's the opportunist thief?"

You. Your answer to whatever percentage they contractually agreed to is to pay them NOTHING.

"Much more people can get access to music, books and movies that would otherwise be unavailable to them due to economic, educational, physical or legal limitations. I offer you %100 penetration, it's up to you to make a product that inspires loyalty."

You're full of shit. You steal, pay nothing, and your summation is 'well, the music gets to more people stealing it. Isn't that marvelous?' You pretend it's up to me to create "loyalty", when you've been the most disloyal fan anyone could imagine.

"All Dimforth has against me is baseless attacks."

Well, and Hackass's own admission he was "using" my name, on this very blog. Yet Hackass still pretends he didn't do it.

Lying, pussy, bitch coward. Dance, little woman.

"people are less willing to respect copywrite if they see it as a personal attack."

Tell me: do you think these people knew the song belonged to someone else when they stole it, or not?

"the girl in this story isn't a pirate, doesn't manufacture copies and has a good deal better reason to feel dehumanized by such petty copywrite law "enforcement"."

Riiiiiiiiiiiight. She's stealing someone else's property, but she's the "victim".

"Well, and Hackass's own admission he was "using" my name, on this very blog. Yet Hackass still pretends he didn't do it.

Lying, pussy, bitch coward. Dance, little woman."

Well angry Prancer, looks like you answered your OWN questions about whether someone esle can play you on the internet, this site or another.

And FYI, the beach projection you wish had happened is all worn out dude. He dropped dead almost two years ago and left a wife and two kids behind so.....

No more graduation parties for him.

And for someone who is such a "champion" of the gay scene you seem to think it is something not to be proud of? Wassupp with that?

Carry on.

"She was convicted of "stealing" 24 songs."

But she stole many more, and you know it.

"And FYI, the beach projection you wish had happened is all worn out dude. He dropped dead almost two years ago"

Awwwwww....I'll bet you still pine for him. And I didn't wish it to happen, dumbshit, you were proud of it. Who's wine, what's wine, where the hell did I dine... Remember?

"And for someone who is such a "champion" of the gay scene you seem to think it is something not to be proud of? Wassupp with that?"

Too funny, coming from a guy who thought "pranceforth" was an insult.

"looks like you answered your OWN questions about whether someone esle can play you on the internet, this site or another."

Gee...you mean someone can lie about me, and claim to be "Danforth" from "the Retort", and I can't stop them from being a lying asshole? What a fuckin' genius.

"You think you can name a starving artist in the list of songs she "stole?" "

Of course I can. The bass player, the backup singer, the co-composer. IOW, the people I work with and serve on boards and committees with. Folks who are trying to qualify for health care and pay their mortgage, as well as deal with the fact folks can now steal their work product. Do you really not have a clue as to how these people are paid?

"Would you rather encourage people to willingly steal or willingly share? Why is the language different - intention. How can the artist maximize profit? Perhaps by not going through a losing model such as the current one."

I'm stunned. You steal from these people, and then blame them because they haven't come up with a "model" that changes your behavior.

What do you do for a living? And what would you do if you suddenly stopped being paid for it? What "model" would you adopt if your work product could suddenly be stolen without consequence?

" I appreciate it's easy to "steal" from an artist I don't know. But these laws are cockeyed."

What...not stealing someone else's property? Those laws?

Boil it down: is there such a thing as intellectual property in your world? Does Stephen King own what he wrote, or are you free to steal it at will (as long, of course you don't steal it from a bookstore...my God, you could actually get in trouble for that, and actually have to answer for your actions!).

"I have downloaded artists I never even knew existed. Whose livelihood has been diminished, exactly?"

You're joking, right? That's like a thief saying "well, I never met the guy I robbed, so that makes it okay, right?"

"OK so, I get it, it's wrong to pirate movies. What's even more diabolical is reduction of quality in viewing those pirate movies. "

So you're upset because the stuff you pilfered isn't up to snuff?

My head just exploded.

I ordered Scrubs season 1-8 from a company called DVDSETSHOP.com for my oldest sons birthday. Linked to it off Amazon.com. What a scam. Turned out their a Chinese ripoff company. Season 1-7 were ok except the artwork on the disk didn't match the season. Season 8 looked like it was ripped right off the tv.

You rip off your customers so a little payback is all you got.

Rasta, you still pissed because I busted you on that line you were feeding people? You know the one about you finishing your BS degree. You've got a BS degree all right. A year ago you told everyone you were going to be a security guard for the rest of your life.

I have finished my degree. I also no longer work as security guard. If you like we can meet and I'll show you my degree.

I work as a union machine mechanic.

Still doesn't change the fact that Motel 6 would be a better value than what you offer.

You need to have wireless in the rooms. How you can expect guests to enjoy themselves if they don't have access to the retort?

Still doesn't change the fact that Motel 6 would be a better value than what you offer.

#239 | Posted by jackass

Who the hell are you directing this to?

tickyul, you're a big bad internet toughguy behind the keyboard calling people names and running your mouth about shit you know nothing about. Step out of the house and you are a little pussy who has to hide from the 5th grade girl who lives down the block else she kicks your ass when she sees you.

So anyway, what's up with that little bet you were looking for? I'll go up to a grand. In fact I'll pay out 2K if I'm wrong. Odds are in your favor tough guy. Or are you afraid to put your money where your mouth is?

#105 | Posted by johnnyLOVESSPERMFORhotsauce at 2009-12-05 09:39 PM | Reply | Flag:

TO:johnnyLOVESSPERMFORhotsauce

No Johnny, I am not a tough guy, but by your reading your post I am sure you are. You have steam running out of your ears because I horribly twist your screen name, pathetic, people do it to me all the time, I think it it funny.

Why do't you say it johnny? you forgot to in your last toughguy post, you know you want to. Here I will write it down so you can cut and post it into your next post:

to: Tickyul
You talk a lot of crap, I am calling you on it. Reaaly tough? Well we can meet up and settle this and see how tough you really are....tough guy! I will manly throttle you within an inch of your life, then make you my bitch.
Signed: Johnny (very tough alpha male stud)!

" I appreciate it's easy to "steal" from an artist I don't know. But these laws are cockeyed."

What...not stealing someone else's property? Those laws?

No, Danforth. The part where it's a felony offense resulting in multi-million dollar judgments and prison time against scofflaws.

You'd take away every college student's right to vote? I hope you like old white men running everything. But hey, you're so concerned about health care, once we throw every IP felon in prison, they'll get free health care there, so everybody wins, right?

I appreciate your passion on this issue but I suspect it clouds your judgment.

Do you really not have a clue as to how these people are paid?

Oh, you'd be surprised. People think its okay to download a song if they have the CD. People think it's okay to burn a CD for a friend. People try to email a song they've bought on iTunes to a friend all the time.

Part of the reason we think it's acceptable to "steal" is because the cartels are such assholes about it. People don't mind screwing over jerks. And yes, the artists suffer.

Let me just posit that the actions of your guild is a bigger drag on your profitability than your customers. If your guild had embraced technology (a la iTunes) ten years ago, you'd be laughing all the way to the bank. But in your zeal to defend your IP, you've decided practically every American age 10-30 is a felon. "Reactionary" doesn't begin to describe it.

Biting the hand that feeds you with ridiculous multi-million dollar judgments against casual downloaders is not actually putting any money in your wallet, now is it?

Thinking constructively for a moment, what do you propose? Shall we issue unpayable multi-million dollar judgments against downloader after downloader until everyone is afraid to even listen to their radio for fear they might be committing a thought-crime? Shall we criminalize crypto research? How about a little chip in everybody's computer that "phones home" to the FBI and the RIAA with a complete list of every .mp3 on their hard drive?

We're gonna need a lot more prisons. Buy stock in CXW.

Let's take this a step further. I have a copy of replay radio. It a great app that lets me schedule and record or download copies of any streaming media. I put that into my BlackBerry for listening to later, because I didn't have time to listen the the show when it aired. Did I steal that music or radio show? The answer of course is no, because it was aired on public radio. I now have many hours of Beatle songs thanks to a radio show called The Beatle Brunch. Do I owe the Beatles money? No, as long as I don't sell it or send it out on the net as a bit torrent or shared file. They got paid by the broadcaster.

Now, the questions were raised, "How do you tell, when they're in the movie theater with a digital camcorder? Do you ask nicely, and if the Chinese guy says he's just doing it for his sick girlfriend at home, do you let him continue?"

The answer is simple. If it is against the theater policy, you throw them out of the theater and ban them them from future attendance just like Casino's do. You don't take bribes from the RIAA to turn stool pidgin. That shit is for social assholes getting paid to screw with the little guys instead of going after real criminals.

"You don't take bribes from the RIAA to turn stool pidgin. "

The media cartel, the RIAA, and the MPAA would be destroyed if the anti-trust laws were enforced. And their trade union co-conspirators ought to be prosecuted as well. They are all gangsters.

If not the anti-trust laws, how about applying the RICO Act to the media cartel?

Well, dumbforth, a table can only be possessed by one person at a time. Thus, your question is moot.Besides, that's what good old Thomas Jefferson and the founding goodfellas thought. Good enough for me.#63 | Posted by nullifidian at 2009-12-05 07:56 PM | Reply |

Please explain this...

This should be educational...

They should have put a stake through her heart.

"No, Danforth. The part where it's a felony offense"

You pointed out she was 'only' convicted of 24 songs, as if thats all she ever downloaded, or as if other criminals had never been 'only' convicted of a fraction of the crimes they had committed. Add up the value of all she stole, and it's felony theft. The 24 was probably a compromise.

"You'd take away every college student's right to vote?"

Can't do the time, don't do the crime.

"Part of the reason we think it's acceptable to "steal" is because the cartels are such assholes about it."

WTF are you talking about...you steal from someone, then have the balls to say they're overreacting?!? The theft came first, not the reaction.

"multi-million dollar judgments against casual downloaders "

The convicted was not a "casual downloader" and you know it. But ultimately, you're just trying to justify what you know is a crime. Does the song, or book belong to the creator or doesn't it?

"Biting the hand that feeds you"

But that hand isn't feeding me. In fact, it's taking food OFF my table. Why do you keep up this pretense? Is it too difficult to actually address the issue of taking what doesn't belong to you?

"Shall we issue unpayable multi-million dollar judgments against downloader after downloader until everyone is afraid to even listen to their radio for fear they might be committing a thought-crime? "

Strawman.

"You don't take bribes from the RIAA to turn stool pidgin. "

Why do you have to resort to lying to try to make a point? You're arguments are getting weaker and weaker by the post.

You're arguments = Your arguments

"The media cartel, the RIAA, and the MPAA would be destroyed if the anti-trust laws were enforced"

And another resorts to a lie, since all reasonable arguments have failed.

#250 | Posted by Danforth at 2009-12-06 10:25 PM | Reply | Flag

Crime families always have their spokesmen, apologists, and sycophants.

POSTED BY NORTHGUY3: And of course, young women are still urged to steer clear of Glen Beck, unless they have an armed chaperone.

Prove that statement chump, link please...

You pointed out she was 'only' convicted of 24 songs, as if thats all she ever downloaded, or as if other criminals had never been 'only' convicted of a fraction of the crimes they had committed. Add up the value of all she stole, and it's felony theft. The 24 was probably a compromise.

It doesn't work that way Danforth. The woman faces a $2M judgment for downloading 24 songs. I think she has something like 2000 songs downloaded... making the true value of her crime, what, two billion dollars?

Meanwhile you can buy those 24 songs on iTunes for $24. Does proportionality mean nothing to you?

And you're telling me that the true harm of the 2,000 songs that one woman downloaded is greater than the Exxon Valdez oil spill. Add up the millions of kids doing it right now and I suppose it's far worse than 9/11. It's probably the greatest economic harm ever suffered in the history of the world. It likely exceeds the planetary GDP.

There's no possible way you can think that.

I don't have a problem with punishing the crime. I have a problem with the severity of the punishment.

And I have problem with my tax dollars spent defending a cartel who, until just a few years ago, were perfectly capable of (and quite successful at) defending their own interests, on their own dime, in civil courts. Why should I have to pay for that now? Because they own Congress, that's the only reason.

those who have the gold make the laws.

"Crime families always have their spokesmen, apologists, and sycophants."

And you seem to be the spokesman for the criminal song-stealers.

Most hypocritical is the fact you pretend to stand for the artists, against the nasty corporations, until the fact comes out you're for paying the artists even less than the corporations. At least they pay the contractual amount; your contribution, like your morals in this regard, is ZERO.

"It doesn't work that way Danforth."

Of course it does. Look at multiple murder cases: often they kill 16, and plead to 3. That doesn't mean they only killed 3. And she was NOT a casual downloader. You know she didn't just download 24 songs, but you have to hide behind that to pretend it wasn't felony theft.

"And you're telling me that the true harm of the 2,000 songs that one woman downloaded is greater than the Exxon Valdez oil spill. "

Are you that stupid when it comes to math, or facts? Exxon was fined MORE than $2 million.

"I don't have a problem with punishing the crime."

Thanks for finally admitting it's a crime. Now, please tell me: who owns the creative product? Does Stephen King own the 1,000 page book he just completed after months and months of work?

"I have problem with my tax dollars spent defending a cartel who, until just a few years ago, were perfectly capable of (and quite successful at) defending their own interests"

That's not true. When the product had been taken, the law did the investigation and prosecution. And it's not a "cartel", you're free to open your own company and pay the artists the higher amount you deem fair. I'm hoping it would be more than the NOTHING the illegal downloaders are currently paying them.

"Why should I have to pay for that now?"

For the same reason the bookstore isn't in charge of going after the shoplifter. Or are you suggesting we change that model, too?

Danforth, what you haven't addressed are following:

Proportionality: Severity of punishment should address the severity of the crime.

Federal vs local law enforcement: Every IP "theft" is a Federal felony. Should we get the Feds involved in every shoplifting case? According to you, the answer is yes.

"Why should I have to pay for that now?"

For the same reason the bookstore isn't in charge of going after the shoplifter. Or are you suggesting we change that model, too?

I think you're proving my point.

If this crime is analogous to shoplifting, then it's clearly not a felony, it clearly shouldn't carry a financial penalty equal to hundreds or tens of thousands of times the cost of the goods pilfered, and it clearly shouldn't be a Federal matter.

There's a major difference between a woman capping 3 minutes of a movie on a cell phone and the Grabik (sp) case you posted earlier where the guy was part of a conspiracy to collect and distribute hundreds of thousands of copyrighted works, even owning distribution servers. The law does not recognize that, and that's the problem. You also don't seem to recognize it, which I find hard to believe. I want to think you're just being disingenuous to prove your point, but I find that hard to believe too.

you pretend to stand for the artists, against the nasty corporations, until the fact comes out you're for paying the artists even less than the corporations.

If you attend one concert, you've likely paid the artists more than if you purchased every CD they released.

Also the legal footing here makes no sense to most people. If Ringmaster can legally record Beatle Brunch off the air and listen to it over and over again, what he's done is functionally no different from just downloading the MP3s. Yes one is protected by the Betamax decision and one is a Federal felony. There's your problem.

In the long view these are the discussions we need to have. The laws we're coming up with now will shape the future in ways we haven't even imagined yet. Unfortunately the trend to date has been reactionary hyper-protectionist "Kill 'em all let G-d sort 'em out" ciminal legislation. It's even gone so far that now we have secret IP treaties such as ACTA that we can't even read. You can't possibly be favor of putting secret laws on the books, can you? Are you in favor of National Security Letters too?

This is a bigger issue than can be addressed by criminalizing human social behavior. Jack Valenti was wrong about the Betamax destroying Hollywood. The cell phone camera also poses little threat.

One more thing Danforth:

OMG...you mean someone is suing for more than they will probably get? You mean there is such a thing as punitive damages??? Stop the presses!!!

Ultimately, Canada knew it was breaking the law, with its "do it now, and deal with maybe getting caught later" attitude. Tell me: who owned the recordings: the Canadian company who released the songs without paying a cent, or the creators and rights holders?

"If this crime is analogous to shoplifting, then it's clearly not a felony"

It is if you steal 300,000 books.

For 14 years plus an extension--if requested--for another 14 years. It was good enough for the founders.

#50 | Posted by nullifidian at 2009-12-05 06:31 PM

LOL. So was slavery, and a lot of other things Null Set would have a problem with if they were still around today.

"So was slavery, and a lot of other things Null Set would have a problem with if they were still around today."

True. But Null makes the reference to 14 years plus 14 years, yet isn't willing to give the current songwriters 14 minutes plus 14 minutes. He wants to be able to rip them off immediately and pay them nothing, while he whines about the nasty corporations only paying them...much, much more.

#263 | Posted by Danforth

You're a lying sack of shit, Danforth, not to mention a corporate shill extraordinaire. I'm perfectly willing to compensate the artists, have done so all my life, but I'm not going to give a dollar to Disney just so a few pennies trickle down to you hacks who are co-conspirators with the media cartel.

A hundred years or so, people of Jack Valenti Danforth's ilk were lobbying to ban horseless carriages in order to preserve the jobs of the buggy whip industry. Special interest hacks always desperately hang on to the status quo, just like they did when they opposed every new technology from radio to tape recorders to vcr's. You people are dinosaurs. Happy extinction!

"Major record labels rip off 300,000 songs for compilation CDs, may owe $60 billion in damages"

Who are the real thieves in Hollywood?

You people are dinosaurs. Happy extinction!

Translation: Advancements in technology have made it easier for me to be a cheapskate, but I'll couch my tightwaddedness in an ad hominem and call people who stick up for property rights to be old fashioned! Now if you'll excuse, me I need to free up some bandwidth for Limewire.

-Null Set

" I'm perfectly willing to compensate the artists, have done so all my life"

Only when you couldn't steal from them. You've shown when you can rip them off, you will.

"I'm not going to give a dollar to Disney just so a few pennies trickle down"

You keep hiding behind that skirt, but your business model is that you pay them NOTHING. Nothing but lip service, that is.

"the media cartel."

No "cartel" at all. Unlike a cartel, you're free to start your own company and generously pay the artists. You're also free to send the money directly to the artists. But you won't do either; instead, you'll keep pretending you care about the artists, all the while ripping them off worse than any corporation ever does. I guarantee they'd rather get 15% from Disney than ZERO percent from you.

"Special interest hacks always desperately hang on to the status quo"

Whereas Null wants the artists to embrace the NEW status quo, where he steals from them and pays them nothing just so he can pretend he's standing up to the nasty corporations...the same corporations who pay the artists much, much more than Null does.

"I'm perfectly willing to compensate the artists"

Really? How much did you send them the last time you illegally downloaded their songs?

Oh...that's right...nothing. And you're stunned as to why they aren't embracing this brave new world.

But tell me the name of the artist, and I'll give you the address to send your check. Or you could get off your lazy hypocritical ass and find that info. Of course, that's never going to happen...you're too busy pretending to stand up to the corporate "man".

"Who are the real thieves in Hollywood?"

The people who release music CDs without owning the rights.

And the people who steal from the artists without compensating them, especially the slimeballs who are pretending to care about the creators while taking from them at every turn.

Whatever. You dinosaurs can cling on to your reactionary business model and try to suppress new technologies that empower consumers and undermine the centralized control exercised by the media cortel. That's the history of Hollywood. It's a losing battle, but those who profit from the status quo will hold on to the bitter end. So whine all you want.

In the meantime, I recommend people download Utorrent, one of the best bit-torrent clients. Tell your friends, too.

"#266 | Posted by JOE at 2009-12-08 06:15 PM | Reply | Flag: Propertarian corporate whore

How much do artists earn when you:

(1) purchase their media through "propertarian" channels; and
(2) download their media through "Utorrent?"

Answer the question, Null Set.

"new technologies that empower consumers "

But you're not a "consumer", your a thief. Consumers buy the product. You rip them off and don't pay a cent.

#270

I'm sure Rogers is thrilled you're using his blogsite to teach people how to steal.

"and undermine the centralized control exercised by the media cortel(sic)"

As long as you're paying the artists less than the "cortel", you're a hypocritical piece of shit.

#274 | Posted by Danforth

Don't tase me bro!

Rogers better shut down the music threads if he doesn't want Jack Valenti Danforth suing him.

"But you're not a "consumer", your a thief."

No, you and your Hollywood cronies are the thieves that have co-conspired to rip off the public for decades. Your cartel ought to prosecuted under the anti-trust laws and the RICO act, thief.

"you and your Hollywood cronies are the thieves"

Posts the guy who steals from the artists, under the guise of standing up for them.

Tell us again...how much did you send the last artist you were "standing up for"...?

Oh...that's right...nothing. Nothing but lip service.

"Your cartel ought to prosecuted under the anti-trust laws and the RICO act"

Again, no cartel, and no RICO. You have every right and every opportunity to open your own company and generously compensate the artists. If you're not too busy stealing from them, that is.

But you'll stick with sending them less than those nasty "cartels", while pretending to occupy the moral high ground, won't you?

"Rogers better shut down the music threads"

Another piece of rank stupidity from Null. There's nothing wrong with posting a link to the YouTube song; the problem comes when you steal property that doesn't belong to you.

"while pretending to occupy the moral high ground, won't you?"

It higher than you, Tom Hagen. You're nothing more than a corporate pimp, a Consigliere for a corrupt corporate crime family.

How much do artists earn when you:

(1) purchase their media through "propertarian" channels; and
(2) download their media through "Utorrent?"

I'll answer it for you.

(1) Something
(2) Nothing.

Who's the thief?

Who's the thief?

#283 | Posted by JOE

You're a lawyer. Who you calling thief?

I didn't expect an honest answer from a troll like you.

Did you know those greedy assholes of the Media Cartel tried to collect royalties for ring-tones?

Fortunately, ASCAP had Joe as their lawyer, and lost.

If these propertarian/right-libertarian assholes like Joe had their way, you wouldn't be able to say to someone "you've got mail" without having your checking account automatically debited. They want to commodify and privatize...every fucking thing in the universe.

Nice strawman. Let me know when you're ready for an honest debate, loser. You have no answer to #283, so you're lashing out like a little girl. Typical.

Boycott the RIAA

Note that none of the bullet points on the "Boycott RIAA" website include "download music for free."

I actually support a decentralization of the music industry and a lot of that group's other goals. But in the meantime, the only way to give money to most recording artists is through established channels of commerce. They receive less money if you download the music for free than if you buy the CD at the store. Period.

"If this crime is analogous to shoplifting, then it's clearly not a felony"

It is if you steal 300,000 books.

I guess I missed the part where the woman with the cell phone showed up with several tractor trailers.

Or did you?

Let's cut to the chase: to whom do the songs belong?

The songs creators are granted temporary exclusive rights to their works. Those rights are what is "owned," but they are not owned in the same way you own a gold bar or a turnip. The songs themselves... I'd say they belong to the world at large once they are unleashed upon that world.

When I listen to your song I haven't "stolen" your ownership rights. When I start selling copies on the subway without your consent, then I have usurped your rights.

Let's jump-cut to "Who owns Beatle Brunch?" How, functionally, is it any different to collect and listen to every Beatles song by taping Beatle Brunch, versus just downloading all the MP3s? Is the former allowed simply because it is more time-consuming and labor-intensive on my part? Does a functionally identical outcome become illegal when technology allows it to be achieved more easily?

"The songs themselves... I'd say they belong to the world at large once they are unleashed upon that world."

After what...one play? Give me the EXACT number.

And what about the new Stephen King novel? Just the first sale?

Let's cut to the chase: to whom do the songs belong?

Nobody. They're fucking zeroes and ones. People who really like an artist want something physical and will - gasp - buy the album. They'll buy a T-shirt. They'll see a show. You're not starving anyone out by downloading their album. These big names are already rich. You're eating into the profits of the companies that take a ten-cent CD, put some data on it, and flip it for 20 bucks. Those companies hire bloodsucking lawyers to protect their profits, and people get slapped with outrageous fines.

Who gives a fuck about the recording industry, anyway? They make millions by propping up talentless pieces of shit. People with far more dedication and skill play their balls off in dingy bars for little or no money. These guys need the internet to get their material out. The commercialization of music stifles creativity, not the internet.

So please dispense with the bullshit.

" Those companies hire bloodsucking lawyers to protect their profits"

And lobbyists like Jack Valenti Danforth.

And lobbyists like Jack Valenti Danforth.

All scum who care nothing for the creative process.

Eventually, the recording industry will stop people from downloading "their" music. The shit they produce has been getting progressively worse every year. An additional three megs of hard drive space will be more valuable to the consumer than some cookie-cutter pop song.

"When I listen to your song I haven't "stolen" your ownership rights."

Yes you have, if you own it in your possession and you haven't paid for it. You've joined the group who has taken bread off my table, or health care away from my family. What other use do you have with songs, if not to listen to them? You don't have to resell them to have stolen them. You're pretending if you can't sit on it or eat it or touch it, it's not really property. But the fact you want it gives it value.

"Let's jump-cut to "Who owns Beatle Brunch?""

Beatle Brunch was broadcast and made available for free download. Apples and oranges. If the owners WANT to give it away...fine.

"Does a functionally identical outcome become illegal when technology allows it to be achieved more easily?"

Yes. One has ownership rights which have been violated, and the other is given away freely. The vast majority of songs written since the dawn of time aren't copyrighted. And many artists are willing to give their work away. Feel free.

"Is he a felon eligible for a huge fine and prison time for posting AllRecipes content?"

It depends: are the recipes copyrighted? Did he take copywritten material without paying to the amount of felony theft?

"please comment on the link Spud provided earlier to that Glenn Campbell video/song on YouTube."

You don't own the song or video to do with what you will. It's watch only. You can't download and own the video. However, if you wrote a program which allowed you to download it without YooTube or the rights owners knowing and/or approving, that's theft. You've seen YouTube videos where instead of the vid showing, you got a "this has been removed by the rights owner" banner, right? That's because someone owns the rights. They're free to say you can have it gratis, but they're also free to say you can't. If Stephen King wants to give away his new book, that's fine by me. If he doesn't, I'll respect that as well. You won't.

Let me ask: when you illegally downloaded those songs, did you know you were breaking the law? Did you know you didn't own the rights, but you did it anyway?

"All scum who care nothing for the creative process."

All due respect, you don't know them, and I do. You couldn't be further from the truth.

"The shit they produce has been getting progressively worse every year."

There's an easy answer to that: don't steal the product if you think it's crappy, or write your own song.

"And lobbyists like Jack Valenti Danforth."

Look, douchbag, until you're willing to pay the artists more than the corporations you hide behind, your pretense isn't worth pig shit. Until then, your hypocrisy is glaring.

"or write your own song."

Yeah, let the Gershwin grandchildren and the corporate copyright holders and all the other parasites not named "George Gershwin" write their own fucking classics! I agree.

Yes you have, if you own it in your possession and you haven't paid for it. You've joined the group who has taken bread off my table, or health care away from my family.

The people who bitch about downloads aren't suffering for it. The small-timers need the internet just so they can get recognized. The resources of the music industry aren't at their disposal so they need to do something to market themselves. The internet is that opportunity.

Mass-marketing of generic slop cuts into the profits of artists who produce quality work but go unrecognized. If you want to bitch and moan about food being taken off of people's plates, look at the stifling effects of the multi-billion dollar recording industry on aspiring musicians.

You can shove your your sob stories and self-righteous indignation up your ass. It has all the legitimacy of a smokestack on the moon.

You don't own the song or video to do with what you will. It's watch only. You can't download and own the video.

Bullshit. The data is transmitted to your computer. It is stored. If you so desire, you can store it indefinitely. Go to youtube. Look at a video. Let it buffer completely. Go to your temporary internet files folder, look for the biggest file there (probably in .avi or .flv format), copy, and save to a different directory.

That file was on your computer to begin with. The zeroes and ones are all there. Is it somehow criminal to not automatically delete the file? Of course not. Copyright law is simply not equipped to handle the digital age... it's become as useful as an asshole on my elbow when it comes to anything electronic.

Look, douchbag [sic]

#301 | Posted by Danforth at 2009-12-09 06:35 PM | Reply | Flag: Flunked English/Quantum Physics 101

--Zatoichi

"They're fucking zeroes and ones."

They're the sum of the work product.

"People who really like an artist want something physical and will - gasp - buy the album."

No they won't. 95% of the copyrighted songs downloaded in 2008 were downloaded illegally.

"You're not starving anyone out by downloading their album."

You're full of shit, and I know these people.

"These big names are already rich. "

More bullshit. The ones most hurt are the session musicians, or the backup singers. Yeah, the big stars can afford it, but the vast majority of copyright artists are regular folks like you. And you're taking food off their table and health care out of their lives.

"You're eating into the profits of the companies that take a ten-cent CD, put some data on it, and flip it for 20 bucks."

Same thing with Software. Should Microsoft operating systems be ripped off as well? Regardless, feel free to start your own company and charge reasonable prices. At those margins, it should be easy to get rich...right?

"Those companies hire bloodsucking lawyers to protect their profits, and people get slapped with outrageous fines."

Cant do the time, don't do the crime.

"Who gives a fuck about the recording industry, anyway?"

YOU do, if you've put enough value on the product to steal it. The very act proves you think it has value.

"They make millions by propping up talentless pieces of shit."

You don't have to buy any of it. And you can write your own songs and give them away all day, if you want. Others have the right to want to get compensated for their work. And none of that justifies taking intellectual property that doesn't belong to you.

"People with far more dedication and skill play their balls off in dingy bars for little or no money."

So support them. Just because you like someone else better doesn't justify ripping anyone off.

"These guys need the internet to get their material out. The commercialization of music stifles creativity, not the internet.
So please dispense with the bullshit."

Your business model is to steal from them, and pay them nothing. Forgive me if I think you're just trying to assuage your own conscience. If it's not valuable, stay away from it. If you can do better, do it. But don't claim it's too crappy to buy, but worthwhile to steal. THAT'S the bullshit.

"Copyright law is simply not equipped to handle the digital age..."

Correction: your morals are simply not equipped to handle the digital age.

"Look, douchbag [sic]"

Gee...a thief and an idiot. What are the odds?

"The people who bitch about downloads aren't suffering for it."

All due respect, you don't know them and I do, and you could not be more wrong. Regular guys aren't able anymore to support their families, or pay their rent, or pay for healthcare because someone invented a way for their work product to be stolen with very few consequences.

"look at the stifling effects of the multi-billion dollar recording industry on aspiring musicians."

How does that justify you ripping some artists off? It's not like you're just stealing from the one big name, although from your posts, that seems to be what you keep telling yourself. And again, if it's so stifling, do something about it, other than using it to justify your theft.

"You can shove your your sob stories and self-righteous indignation up your ass. It has all the legitimacy of a smokestack on the moon."

Says the guy who wants to continue ripping off artists while pretending to be all for them.

#307 | Posted by Danforth at 2009-12-09 06:52 PM

As Marx pointed out, material existence, and how one earns it, precedes and shapes ideology. Or, as James Carville put it a century and a half later, it's the economy, stupid.

Pretty much explains the torrents...hahaha...of words coming from Jack Valenti Danforth.

The people who bitch about downloads aren't suffering for it.

Says who? There are plenty of file sharing programs available which enable users to download "indie" and other lesser known bands, free of charge. If you want to pretend that everyone who likes what they hear will go out and buy the album, you're only kidding yourself.

"let the Gershwin grandchildren and the corporate copyright holders and all the other parasites not named "George Gershwin" write their own fucking classics!"

Children inherit their parents valuable items all the time, from homes to businesses to the Coca-Cola recipe. If Gershwin's compositions weren't so valuable, the heirs would be getting nothing. But don't pretend they're worthless, and then rip them off for the product; you've just invalidated your own argument.

"As Marx pointed out, material existence, and how one earns it, precedes and shapes ideology"

Yeah, and your ideology is you can steal it, so why pay for it?

When was the last time you sent money to the artists you pretend to believe it, Null? Oh...that's right...never. Lip service is the only thing you pay. Unless of course their might be consequences. They you buy the concert ticket, but your actions proclaim you'd sneak in if you thought you could get away with it.

"their" = there

"Mass-marketing of generic slop cuts into the profits of artists who produce quality work but go unrecognized."

That's like saying Carl's Jr. sells lousy hamburgers, so you should have the right to steal steaks from Ralph's.

313,000 results for
douchbag:

11,900,000 results for
douchebag:

Oops! Looks like Jack Daniels Danforth gets it wrong...again.

95% of the copyrighted songs downloaded in 2008 were downloaded illegally.

No shit. When I say "buy the album" I mean buy the CD. The vinyl. You want the physical object. Even if you gave away every album ever made for free over the internet, there will always be a market for the physical media.

The ones most hurt are the session musicians, or the backup singers.

Gee, maybe you think they deserve more compensation? Those are the guys who deserve to be making money, not Amy fucking Winehouse or the goddamn Jonas Brothers. The industry is the problem. It sets people up to be multimillionaire superstars even though other people did most of the work to get them there. The industry invests millions into marketing individuals and then whines when it can't recoup its investment. Any losses the industry incurs get passed on to the "little guy". There will always be money to be made in recording, but it is asinine to think that the money should go anywhere but to the musicians themselves. The internet has just taken out the need for the middlemen.

I know these people.

Perhaps you can tell them why they're making less money than the big names even though they do the kind of work that makes a shitty performer's music sound decent.

You don't have to buy any of it.

I don't. Nor do I download it. The vast majority of music being made today is utter shit that isn't worth stealing. As I said before, I would prefer the 3 megs of empty hard drive space. I support free exchange of information on the internet, though, and this notion of "intellectual property" is a joke. If you're an artist and you're sharing your art, it's not your property anymore.

And none of that justifies taking intellectual property that doesn't belong to you.

"Intellectual property" is a joke that is in the process of being crushed by technology. Its proponents should get used to obsolescence.

And what about the new Stephen King novel? Just the first sale?

What's "the novel?" Is it the physical book, the pages therein? Or is it the right to make reproductions of that work?

Beatle Brunch was broadcast and made available for free download. Apples and oranges. If the owners WANT to give it away...fine.

So the authors (more accurately the copyright holders) are okay with giving away Beatle Brunch, which consists of Beatles songs. So then how is it any different if I just go download those songs on my own? The authors have already decided to give it away, right?

"Is he a felon eligible for a huge fine and prison time for posting AllRecipes content?"

It depends: are the recipes copyrighted? Did he take copywritten material without paying to the amount of felony theft?

Yes, they are copyrighted. There is no "amount" that comes into play. A single infringment is a felony, and also punishable by a fine of up to $250,000. The fact that AllRecipes provides their recipes "for free" does not mean others can reproduce those creative works without the consent of the copyright holders, does it? Because if it does then downloading Beatles songs which the copyright holders have provided in Beatle Brunch would not be a crime, and it most certainly is. (There used to be an amount that came into play, the copyright holder had to demonstrate economic harm, and these things made more sense then, as I've argued ad nauseam...)

"please comment on the link Spud provided earlier to that Glenn Campbell video/song on YouTube."

You don't own the song or video to do with what you will. It's watch only. You can't download and own the video. However, if you wrote a program which allowed you to download it without YooTube or the rights owners knowing and/or approving, that's theft.

Now you're getting tangled up. First of all, in order to watch the video, I must download it and possess multiple copies, one on my hard drive, and one in RAM. Second of all, it is trivial to pluck the .flv from my web browser's download cache, many programs exist to do so.

Taking a step back, do you think the copyright owners posted that video on YouTube? Almost certainly they didn't. According to the laws you support, anyone who clicked that link and watched the video possesses a copy and is a felon.

Copyright law is simply not equipped to handle the digital age

Bingo. The guild's business model depends on the physical scarcity of reproductions of copyrighted works. That should be obvious from the word "copy right...." a right to make copies (and then presumably sell them). The digital age renders that business model obsolete. Their response has not been to embrace technology, but to get Congress to criminalize it.

Intellectual property concepts in general are not well suited to the digital age. Patents on mathematical algorithms and business models for example.

Regular guys aren't able anymore to support their families, or pay their rent, or pay for healthcare because someone invented a way for their work product to be stolen with very few consequences.

Most people aren't thieves. Give them a way to pay and they do. iTunes has sold over 2 billion songs. The reason so much "stealing" happened is because the cartels assumed we are all thieves and spent years criminalizing our behavior rather than adapting to technology.

When you treat your customers like thieves, don't be surprised when they live up to your expectations.

I'm not saying downloading songs is right, but it's a petty offense, and making it a felony won't stem the tide. The horse has bolted, and your guilds had better learn to adapt to a world in which intellectual property rights are decoupled from physical scarcity; their survival depends upon it.

The buggy-whip industry of today--represented by the RIAA and MPAA, among others, are making painful sounds as they die...

"The buggy-whip industry of today--represented by the RIAA and MPAA, among others, are making painful sounds as they die..."

Why should anyone listen to someone who pretends to be supporting the artists while paying them so much less than the corporations he attacks? Shakespeare called it "sound and fury, signifying nothing." You're concept of the "new industry" is to rip the creators off. Until you're willing to pay the artists more than the corporations you slam, you're nothing but a hypocritical joke.

"If you're an artist and you're sharing your art, it's not your property anymore."

Define "sharing". Do you mean if I exhibit my painting, you now have the right to appropriate that image in any way you want? Or if you happen to be in the coffeehouse when I play my new song, you now are a co-owner? You plead for better treatment of artists while you treat them like shit. How would you feel if someone could easily steal your work? Oh....that's right...you don't care, because it doesn't affect you.

Ultimately, technology is changing faster than our morals can adapt. You know it doesn't belong to you, but you also know the odds of being prosecuted or having to answer for what you do are very slim. Yet you would never steal the iPod, or the book, or the painting, because you might actually have to answer for what you do. No one is suggesting Stephen King shouldn't have the right to sell his book...even copies and copies and copies. But for all the faceless people who are being hurt...well, you don't know them personally, so you can hide behind the pretense that you're only hurting the corporations, or tell yourself the big stars can afford it.

But that's not what we talk about at the meetings. We know, like you do, that stealing a movie isn't going to hurt Tom Hanks. It's going to take money out of the pocket of the day player, or the background singer, or the bassist. It's the composer working on his first project who isn't going to make health care that year, because 19 out of 20 times someone wanted his song, they just took it instead of paying him for what they wanted. You want to claim it's a new model?!? Then admit the "model" includes you ripping them off...because you can, and no other reason. If it was really a protest against the corporation, you wouldn't buy the T-shirt, or purchase the concert ticket, because Live Nation gets a big cut. Or you'd send the money directly to the artists, who would love to get that surprise check from a consumer with a conscience. The bottom line is a great tragedy has happened in these people's lives: what they do and love can be stolen with the click of a mouse. So now they have to rely on the morals or the largess of the general population, and that's turning out to be a very precarious concept. Most folks would rather steal than pay. So stop fooling yourself that it's about anything but taking money out of their wallet and putting it into yours. And pray that no one invents a way to steal from you the same way.

Why should anyone listen to someone who ...

#321 | Posted by Danforth

Yeah, yeah, yeah, consigliere. Why would anyone listen to someone whose self-interest is so manifest? Hollywood butters your bread. Your opinion is as neutral as that of your make-up artist.

"The industry is the problem."

Then change it some other way than stealing from it. You can record all day and give it away if you want. But saying it's a problem, so it's okay to steal from them, is patently absurd.

"Hollywood butters your bread."

Bullshit. I make nothing sitting on the Board. It's a volunteer position, and I'm elected by my peers. And I'm sure I've made less in residuals in my life than you've stolen. But as long as your concept is to pay the artists nothing, while the corporations you bitch about pay them infinitely more, you're nothing but a pathetic batch of hot air.

""Intellectual property" is a joke that is in the process of being crushed by technology."

Who owns the book Stephen King just wrote?

"Oops! Looks like Jack Daniels Danforth gets it wrong...again."

Sorry, stupid fuck...it can be spelled both ways. Suck it.

"Then change it some other way than stealing from it. "

What a fraud, coming from the shill that wants and has argued for eternal copyrights.

"do you think the copyright owners posted that video on YouTube?"

No, but according to YouTube, they have the right to request it be taken down. That right doesn't come from nowhere.

"Most people aren't thieves. Give them a way to pay and they do."

Nice try. 19 out of 20 say you're wrong.

"Bullshit. I make nothing sitting on the Board."
...
#325 | Posted by Danforth

Bullshit, yourself. You're part of the industry. You make your living from the industry. You've bragged about your participation in it. And now you've never hear of it? Holly who???

lol. What a fraud.

"Perhaps you can tell them why they're making less money than the big names even though they do the kind of work that makes a shitty performer's music sound decent. "

For the same reason some .286 hitters make more than a rookie of the year hitting .324. Not to mention there are some who don't want fame of any kind, or would rather spend time with their families at home than 9 months of the year on the road. And some know they'll never be a star, and find joy making others look good, while avoiding the downsides of stardom...and there are downsides, don't kid yourself.

"The digital age renders that business model obsolete. "

Not unless you believe relying on humans doing what's right is "obsolete". Maybe it is, in this age of "steal it while you can".

"You're part of the industry. You make your living from the industry. "

No, I don't, not from residuals. Thank God, because according to you, I should be ripped off at every turn. You pretend to be for me, when the corporations you spit on offer me much, much more. You've never paid me a dime, and plan on never paying in the future.

"the cartels assumed we are all thieves"

Nah....only 95% of you. Get real. The numbers prove we were right.

"So the authors (more accurately the copyright holders) are okay with giving away Beatle Brunch, which consists of Beatles songs. So then how is it any different if I just go download those songs on my own?"

You're joking, right? You're pretending if an artist chooses to give you a print of their work, you have a right to steal other prints.

"has argued for eternal copyrights."

You're a liar. Post where I argued for "eternal copyrights", shit-sack.

But what should I expect from someone who's an admitted thief, and proud of it?

Danforth, the problem began when the cartels were unwilling to give consumers what they wanted.

I'm sure you understand economics well enough to know the absence of a legitimate market gives rise to a black market.

People wanted to be able to play the songs they bought on their computers. The RIAA's response was to tell us ripping a CD was a criminal act. Burning a copy of a CD for the car was a criminal act. Then when DVDs rolled around they got Congress to pass legislation making it a felony to create a backup copy. In the process they obviated centuries of Fair Use precedent and attempted to end-around the Doctrine of First Sale. Both of those long-standing legal principles are necessary and vital. But both represent "lost sales" to the cartels. The cartels would destroy the creative freedom they ostensibly support if it lines their pockets.

There's nothing wrong with flouting an unjust law. There's a lot of things right with it. I'm not saying every downloader is Ghandi. Your industry's inability to provide people the products they want (i.e. digital music) should be viewed as a failure of your industry. Instead you choose to blame the consumer. This is at odd with your thinking regarding, say, the War on Drugs. It's not surprising you change your tune when it affects your pocketbook, but at least admit you're doing it.

Again, guys who are bigtime content providers should be busted. You have two choices: Adapt to technology, or play whack-a-mole forever. And it's not going so well. Last I looked, about half the volume of Internet traffic is BitTorrent. If you find a way to stop BitTorrent something will take its place, as BitTorrent took Napster's place.

Adapt or die. Evolve. Fighting technology is not adaptation, it's retrograde motion. The genie's not going back in the bottle, and no amount of you boo-hooing over the injustice of starving artists who can't afford health care will change that.

Frankly I find your moral high-horsing a bit of a put-on. You're reluctant to come out and call myself and so many others felons, but the laws you support are not so modest. Everyone who has watched that video and countless other works on YouTube put there without the consent of the copyright holder is a felon. That would be... just about everybody on the Internet, at last count.

Funny how a crime wave of pandemic proportions, where each crime is a felony and carries a punishment of up to $250,000 hasn't broken the back of society.

The only logical conclusion is it's not that severe a crime after all.

"You're a liar. Post where I argued for "eternal copyrights", shit-sack."
...
#336 | Posted by Danforth

No, I'm not a liar, but unlike Hans, I don't save posts, and I don't really care whether anybody believes my recollection or not. You argued for unlimited copyrights until you got bashed and then backed off a little bit and came up with some life +100 years formulation, or some other corporate welfare scheme.

"Danforth, the problem began when the cartels were unwilling to give consumers what they wanted."

I agree, but when did that translate into it being okay to steal the song?

"There's nothing wrong with flouting an unjust law."

Which is why you smoke weed in front of cops, right? What?!? You don't??? You only flout "unjust laws" when you have no danger of being caught? Wow....what a brave pioneer you are....

"Your industry's inability to provide people the products they want "

"What they want" is to get the product for free, and it has been from the start.

"Adapt or die."

Adapt = bend over and give it away for free.

"The genie's not going back in the bottle, and no amount of you boo-hooing over the injustice of starving artists who can't afford health care will change that."

Of course not. You're going to keep stealing the product, and no amount of pointing out you don't own it is going to change your mind.

"You're reluctant to come out and call myself and so many others felons,"

Steal enough, and you're a felon. I don't believe one download makes one a felon, and I've disagreed strongly with many of the hardline tactics. But I can't deny that illegally downloading copyrighted songs owned by someone else is a crime, just like shoplifting a 45 out of a record store was.

"Everyone who has watched that video and countless other works on YouTube put there without the consent of the copyright holder is a felon."

Who has made that claim, other than you?

"Frankly I find your moral high-horsing a bit of a put-on."

I don't. I know and work with these people on committees and boards. I've known some of them for over a decade, and one friend has seen his career drop off the cliff because only one of twenty now pay. On the contrary, I think your defense is a put-on. You know it's not yours, yet you steal it anyway, while puffing out this smokescreen about shitty product, greedy corporations, and overpaid stars, none of which justifies ripping off the creators.

"The only logical conclusion is it's not that severe a crime after all."

Really? That's the "only logical conclusion"?!? How about that it's not a felony, but enough of them together are? How about that people's human nature is a lot shittier than some of us hoped?

Adapt = bend over and give it away for free.

Yes. So grab your ankles and shut the fuck up, danforth.

You can't put the internet in a bottle. Downloading will continue. As they say... resistance is futile.

I've known some of them for over a decade, and one friend has seen his career drop off the cliff because only one of twenty now pay.

If your cartels hadn't first tried to ignore the Internet, then convinced Congress we're all dangerous felons, perhaps Joe Consumer would be more willing to do business with The Friendly Record Labels.

But that's not what happened. "If you plant ice you're gonna harvest wind."

The approach of the IP rights holders has been exactly wrong. That doesn't excuse the rampant disregard for IP rights we see in the digital age. But it's their property to protect and they've done about as horrible a job as imaginable, including trying to foist that responsibility off on Joe Taxpayer via clumsy and poorly-conceived Acts of Congress. The industry term "Every Mistake Imaginable" comes to mind. As does Madonna's "What the hell do you think you're doing?" Remember the time when Sony tried to put a rootkit on everybody's computer? And you think I'm the problem?

You'll catch more flies with honey than vinegar, Danforth. Your current business model views your customers as cockroaches to be squashed or sent scurrying. Think that's got anything to do with why sales are down?

How about that it's not a felony, but enough of them together are?

The law says a single infringement is a felony and punishable by a fine of up to $250,000. That law is bullshit, so I ignore it. I flout other laws too, such as speed limits on empty highways. Sometimes I get parking tickets. Sometimes I possess illegal drugs. And sometimes I download songs. They are minor infractions.

By the way I went to a concert last night. Four of us spent about $150 on merch. Your starving artist friends should get out there and tour.

"The approach of the IP rights holders has been exactly wrong. That doesn't excuse the rampant disregard for IP rights we see in the digital age. "

The whole concept of intellectual property is a corporate fraud. A physical object can only be possessed by one person at a time. Words, ideas, music, etc., on the other hand, by "billions and billions".

"So grab your ankles and shut the fuck up, danforth.
You can't put the internet in a bottle. Downloading will continue. As they say... resistance is futile."

In other words, you're a thief, and you're going to continue being a thief. Because you don't know the people you're stealing from, and so you can continue to lie to yourself that they don't really exist and therefore you're not really hurting anyone. Too bad your mother never taught you not to take what doesn't belong to you.

"If your cartels hadn't first tried to ignore the Internet, then convinced Congress we're all dangerous felons, perhaps Joe Consumer would be more willing to do business with The Friendly Record Labels."

Bullshit. Thievery has been around since the beginning of digital music files. And your "cartel" claim is bullshit, and has been debunked. Start a label and give it away for all I care, but don't claim Microsoft charges too much for it's operating system and pretend that means it's okay for you to steal it.

"But it's their property to protect and they've done about as horrible a job as imaginable"

What would you do if suddenly your work product could be stolen with the click of a mouse by a bunch of cowards who wouldn't steal an iPod or a digital camera, or who would never try to sneak into a concert without paying for a ticket?

"Your current business model views your customers as cockroaches to be squashed or sent scurrying."

Well, when 95% are thieves, maybe the shoe fits. Especially when YOUR business model treats the artists as scum to be ripped off at every opportunity.

"The law says a single infringement is a felony and punishable by a fine of up to $250,000."

Where?

"I flout other laws too, such as speed limits on empty highways."

But you wouldn't if you thought a cop was around.

"Sometimes I get parking tickets."

And you pay them.

"Sometimes I possess illegal drugs."

But you don't smoke or shoot up around the police, You only "flout" when you have an expectation of getting away with it.

"And sometimes I download songs. They are minor infractions."

I doubt you'll go to jail for a song or two. That still doesn't make it right, nor does it make it your property or your work product.

"By the way I went to a concert last night. Four of us spent about $150 on merch."

What? You didn't steal it? Why not??? Oh, right...you would have had to answer for your actions, which you don't have to do when you're stealing songs that don't belong to you.

"Your starving artist friends should get out there and tour."

Otherwise, fuck them, right? If they're not touring, it's okay to take food off their table...is that your belief?

"The whole concept of intellectual property is a corporate fraud"

Tell Stephen King he doesn't own the book he just wrote, or James Cameron that Avatar is public domain as soon as he shows it.

Bottom line is you're just a lazy thief who can't produce anything creative, so you're left to steal other people's property. Chris Rock had a line about that, where he talked about the type of people who would work all day, versus the type of people who would wait in the bushes and knock that worker on the head with a rock and take their pay. You're obviously one of the latter.

"Your starving artist friends should get out there and tour."

Otherwise, fuck them, right? If they're not touring, it's okay to take food off their table...is that your belief?

No, fuck the publishing companies they signed deals with. It's too bad they've thrown their lot in with reactionaries and Luddites, but the career decisions we make do not come without consequences.

I know you find it hard to believe that I have a clean conscience. I'm hurting your friends by stealing from them and I seem not to care.

But this isn't about your friends. It's about the media rights holders, the MPAA and the RIAA. They drew first blood. They convinced Congress to broadly criminalize a massive scope of economically harmless trivial IP violations.

Now, you'll say it's not harmless owing to your many friends suffering. But that's not sufficient. You want to come after someone for accessing a copyrighted work without the owner's permission, show me real economic harm before you start imposing $250,000 fines, felony convictions, and prison time.

These laws are appropriate for taking down organized crime rings, but they're being used to shake down college kids. That's simply not an appropriate use of tax dollars, nor is it sensible public policy.

So sorry, but fuck 'em. When industry buys out government, I reserve the right to extend a rigid and stiff middle finger to both.

"No, fuck the publishing companies they signed deals with."

Why? Which of the two do you believe shouldn't be allowed to come to an agreement with the other? I mean, if the artist got 90 of the 99 cents for iTunes, would you pay then? Of course you wouldn't. So the "publishing company" is just a smokescreen so you can justify your theft. You're claiming you're ripping off the corporation so you can pretend you're not really ripping off the creators.

"But this isn't about your friends. It's about the media rights holders"

My friends entered into voluntary agreements with these companies. Just like ZH, if 90% went to the musicians, you'd still be ripping them off, so cut with the "I'm pissed at the big, faceless corporations" bullshit. You steal from them because of you, not because of them.

"Now, you'll say it's not harmless owing to your many friends suffering. But that's not sufficient."

Thanks for proving my point. You don't really give a fuck about the artists.

"show me real economic harm before you start imposing $250,000 fines, felony convictions, and prison time."

Pure bullshit. Show me ONE example of someone downloading one song and getting that result.

"So sorry, but fuck 'em. When industry buys out government, I reserve the right to extend a rigid and stiff middle finger to both."

Meaning you reserve the right to steal. But it's telling: you left the artist out of your equation. Like I said, thanks for proving my point.

"Now, you'll say it's not harmless owing to your many friends suffering. But that's not sufficient."

Thanks for proving my point. You don't really give a fuck about the artists.

I don't really give a fuck about anybody, aside from friends and family, when you get down to it. I suspect you're the same way. This isn't really any great revelation. I'm not Mother Teresa. (Actually I'm certain I'm a far better soul than that cunt, but that's a different story.)

What's "not sufficient" is your demonstration of harm. You "know some people" who have been harmed. Nice sample size, bro!

Show me ONE example of someone downloading one song and getting that result.

How about the subject of this thread, a woman who recorded three minutes of a movie on her cell phone? She could get three years based on the laws you support. And meanwhile when it was discovered one of the MPAA's own was responsible for distributing many screeners to the Internet, where was the felony charge? Nice double standard, bro!

My friends entered into voluntary agreements with these companies.

Your friends made poor choices, and are now learning a valuable yet expensive lesson. They could have gone the DiY route like Immortal Technique, they didn't, oh well. Maybe they'll try harder next time.

Meaning you reserve the right to steal. But it's telling: you left the artist out of your equation

No, the MPAA/RIAA left the artist out of the equation when they decided the people who enjoy the artist's work are best viewed as dangerous rapists.

Tells you a lot about the publishing industry's mentality actually.

But it's telling: you left the artist out of your equation. Like I said, thanks for proving my point.

Your point is about as valid as this one: "If you say you support the troops then you have to support the war too."

"I don't see why you think your fight is with me. It should be with the people who have and continued to screw your friends in every business deal and Congressional buyout they make. But seeing how beholden you are to your faceless corporate masters, I understand your rage, even if it's mistakenly addressed at me. It's tough being a ho when your pimp don't treat you right."

Ouch. Game over. lol. Jack Valenti Danforth goes down for the count.

how many weeks has this battle been going on?

"how many weeks has this battle been going on?"

You don't think Danforth--"tax filer to the stars"--is going to quit, do you?

Weeks? It started with Gutenberg.

Back then, Danforth would have had me excommunicated for spreading the word of G-d without the necessary adult supervision provided by my good friends in Rome.

And back then, that might have scared me.

"You've come a long way, baby!"

"You don't think Danforth--"tax filer to the stars"--is going to quit, do you?"

No. I guess not. Have to give the guy credit though.

Thing is, I can agree with him in principle but when it comes down to RIAA's chickens coming home to roost, its hard to have sympathy.

"Quit pretending your guild masters aren't guilty of the very "crime" they accuse us of. "

You buy computer software, don't you? Despite the fact the cost per unit is miniscule, and those actually writing the programs aren't paid fortunes, right?

Let me know when you steal from them, because of their "corporate masters"...Oh, right...you don't and won't...because you can't.

Stop with the bullcrap. All your noise about pay, and quality, and "cartels" and "masters" is horseshit: you steal because you can, and because you don't believe you're going to be caught. It's the digital age, and you've checked your morals at the door.

"No, the MPAA/RIAA left the artist out of the equation "

Sorry, thief: The MPAA/RIAA is willing to pay the artists. You're not. So you're "concern" about the creators is bogus. The only thing you're "paying" them is lip service, because you need a convenient skirt to hide behind. Any other product, if the owners start charging too much, you stop buying it. Here, you merely use it as a justification to steal it.

I agree with him in principle too, but his "side" has gone fly-off-the-handle crazy.

It's only rain, Chicken Little. We're not all Boston Stranglers.

What tiny amount of sympathy I can drum up is reserved for the slaves, uh I mean captives, no I mean artists.

Why don't you fuckers go on strike if the situation is so G-d damned desperate, Danforth?

VROOMFONDEL: We'll go on strike!
MAJIKTHISE: That's right! You'll have a national Philosopher's strike on your hands!
DEEP THOUGHT: Who will that inconvenience?

:)

"I don't really give a fuck about anybody, aside from friends and family, when you get down to it. I suspect you're the same way."

You suspect wrong. I've volunteered for over 25 years for causes like this, and routinely fight for people I've never met. I believe those of us privileged enough to sit at the table have a responsibility to those who don't.

Years ago, I was the chair of a committee that fielded waiver requests to the contract. I would always poll my committee before giving an answer, except for one time: one theatre wanted to move a contract from one show to another. I said that would be okay, without asking my committee. Why? I knew the job lost by saying yes was...mine.

"Why don't you fuckers go on strike if the situation is so G-d damned desperate, Danforth?"

Strike against who...you thieves? What would that accomplish? You've already stated you're not going to stop stealing, regardless. Besides, if your goal is to drive artists out of the creation business, it'll happen soon enough. The only choice left will be to give product away for free, and those who aren't willing to tour will die on the vine. But that's what you want, isn't it?

if your goal is to drive artists out of the creation business, it'll happen soon enough

There will be plenty of artists and plenty of music for them to make. Publishers and large record labels can expect to go the way of the dinosaur unless they adapt, though. The 21st century is leaving them behind, not the artist.

I have a feeling that's why Danforth is so pissy. Could it be that he is one of those that stands to become obsolete?

you steal because you can, and because you don't believe you're going to be caught. It's the digital age, and you've checked your morals at the door.

I make copies of copyrighted works for personal use because I can, just as I did when I taped songs off the radio, and in both cases not only did I not think I wasn't going to be caught, I didn't think I was doing anything wrong.

It's the digital age, and you've checked your morals at the door.

Au contraire, it's your ethics which didn't fit through the door. Your business model made possible by physical scarcity of copies of reproduced works didn't fit through the door. Finding your money-making schemes left out in the digital-era cold, you go crying to the legislature.

Which is why to most you look like both a Luddite fool and an unethical bully. Even if your cause is just, you defend it with such ham-fisted sanctimony as to be repulsive.

"I care about those poor, poor artists exactly as much as your guild, bub."

You're a liar: they're willing to pay them. You're not.

You don't care a whit, and if you could sneak into the concert and steal the T-shirt, you would. The fact you still pay for the concert and buy the merchandise proves it's not the business/artist spilt that concerns you, it's whether or not you can easily rip the creators off and get away with it. The quality of the songs, or the ruthlessness of the nasty corporations are just a convenient place for you to hide the fact you're devoid of morals. You were taught it's not right to take what doesn't belong to you, but fuck that lesson...stealing it is too easy for you.

"Au contraire, it's your ethics which didn't fit through the door."

What a putz. You're not going to pretend you own Stephen King's latest novel. My ethics are that if someone creates a work, they own that creation. Your "ethics" -- such as they are -- are if you can steal it, it's yours. Didn't your parents teach you any better? Mine did.

"Why don't you fuckers go on strike if the situation is so G-d damned desperate, Danforth?"

Strike against who...you thieves?

So let me get this straight: You are in a union, but that union has no power? And still you defend the guild which ostensibly represents you and keeps the millions of college kid Boston Stranglers at bay?

You're fucked in the head, son.

I suppose I should offer more sympathy. Your case is akin to an abused spouse who stays with the abuser because there's no place else to go.

" to most you look like both a Luddite fool and an unethical bully."

Gee...insults from the guy who's ripping folks like me off. Excuse me if I believe they have all the worth of what you're willing to pay. But I will give you this--- you have to be real scum to steal from someone, and then insult them on top of it.

"Your case is akin to an abused spouse who stays with the abuser because there's no place else to go."

No...they could go with you, who'll shoot them and kick them out in the street without a dime. And you're proud of it.

"There will be plenty of artists and plenty of music for them to make."

There already is. But you don't want that music, you want to steal the good stuff. All the while you pretend it's worthless.

Your "ethics" -- such as they are -- are if you can steal it, it's yours. Didn't your parents teach you any better? Mine did.

My parents were thrilled when I held the tape recorder up next to the radio to record programs so we could listen to them later.

Believe it or not it was "The Hitch Hiker's Guide To The Galaxy" on our local NPR affiliate (which I quoted earlier). With an added bonus track of my mom doing dishes in the background.

So I guess I just come from a mastermind criminal family, Danforth. We should all be serving about three years in the pen like this woman who recorded three minutes of video on her cell phone; is that an accurate statement of your beliefs?

Or do you think maybe, just maybe, you're overreacting, labeling everyone thieves, and acting like you're the one man who can see in the world of the blind?

""I don't see why you think your fight is with me. It should be with the people who have and continued to screw your friends in every business deal"

You have to be totally fucked in the head to believe that 15% (or 25%, or whatever) is somehow worse than the ZERO you offer. And every time you raise that bogus point it just amplifies how worthless that argument is.

"We should all be serving about three years in the pen like this woman who recorded three minutes of video on her cell phone"

That's not going to happen, and you know it. More bogus barf. It seems that's all you have.

You don't care a whit, and if you could sneak into the concert and steal the T-shirt, you would. The fact you still pay for the concert and buy the merchandise proves it's not the business/artist spilt that concerns you, it's whether or not you can easily rip the creators off and get away with it.

Where's that put the five bucks I threw down for gas money, I wonder? I must be such a huge believer in the fossil fuel economy I want even the bands I hate to tour just so XOM gets their cut.

"Or do you think maybe, just maybe, you're overreacting, labeling everyone thieves"

Gee...let's see...you're taking what you know doesn't belong to you, removing health care from artist's lives, and compensating them NOTHING. That shoe sure seems to fit, even if you can't admit it to that thief in your mirror.

"We should all be serving about three years in the pen like this woman who recorded three minutes of video on her cell phone"

That's not going to happen, and you know it. More bogus barf. It seems that's all you have.

The law says it could happen, Danforth. Like the Three Strikes guy who got 20 years for stealing a cookie. These things happen because the law says they can.

I guess one or two isolated cases of barf are okay, so long as you remain profitable? And you dare lecture me on morality?

you're taking what you know doesn't belong to you

I am? I don't have a right to make a copy of a copyrighted work for private non-commerical use?

I must have read a different Betamax decision than the one you did.