Copyright Infringement

[Dogger]

A crime is also a crime even if no one gets caught. Just like one can break the law and never get caught. Might want to be careful with these statements though, your leftoid buddies have made claims that one can not commit a crime unless caught AND convicted.

And stated that if the Government never charges you, you never broke the law or committed a crime.

Can you guess who they were defending with these claims?

Was it Bill Clinton? Clinton was guilty of contempt of court for lying about his relationship with Monica Lewinsky, and he was properly adjudicated in contempt. But you're probably thinking he committed perjury, and that isn't so.

Perjury is lying under oath about "any material matter which he does not believe to be true". A material matter must be both relevant and significant to the matter being tried.

In discovery proceedings, the standard is much less. Clinton was obligated to reveal the relationship in discovery because it could lead to other evidence that was actually relevant. That omission was properly punished as contempt. But Clinton's voluntary affair in the mid 90's did not tend to prove anything that was at issue in the Paula Jones case. It wasn't relevant, and it certainly wasn't material, so the perjury statute simply did not apply.

 

[Paulie]

The logic in here seems to espouse that it's ok to copy a CD for "personal use". So if a friend lets me borrow a CD to make a copy, I broke the law because I "stole" it. But if he makes a copy, and just let's me borrow it, no law was broken because the copy was for "personal use". In the end however, nothing changed. One extra copy of a CD was made, leading to POTENTIALLY one less sale.

 

[Care4all]

The difference is that on the movie that you are copying from the Cable company or the albumn you are copying from a Cd that you have purchased on to a tape or your computer is that YOU paid for the item you are copying for personal use verses taking something from the internet that you never paid for in the first place.

owners of the movies you watch on cable have gotten their "cut" from the cable companies....they get paid by the cable companies to use the movie in many if not all cases so by you paying the cable company, you have essencially paid for it, so as said, burning a dvd for personal use is okay.

However, your isp does not pay these artists for their work, so copying their work in your home using your isp is an infringement imo.

care

 

[Care4all]

Honestly though, when the napster suit was going on my husband was pretty upset that the artists were saying that they did not get their cut already...

Why you ask?

Well, to put it the way that he put it to me... he said:

"Well, I already paid for the albumn, and paid for the 8 track to listen to it in my car, and then paid for it again when the industry switched to CD's by buying the CD, and NOW they want me to PAY AGAIN for this same talent when I want the same albumn that I have paid for three different times already, put on to my computer???? Bull shit!"

I think my hubby has a point...when it comes to old music that you have purchased over and over again, but the media matter keeps changing so that THEY CAN MAKE MORE money....

care

 

[mattskramer]

yea.. build that prison, dude. you might need a couple MILLION cells.

How do you come up with all of these cute funny, pertinent, insightful images?

 

[Gunny]

Honestly though, when the napster suit was going on my husband was pretty upset that the artists were saying that they did not get their cut already...

Why you ask?

Well, to put it the way that he put it to me... he said:

"Well, I already paid for the albumn, and paid for the 8 track to listen to it in my car, and then paid for it again when the industry switched to CD's by buying the CD, and NOW they want me to PAY AGAIN for this same talent when I want the same albumn that I have paid for three different times already, put on to my computer???? Bull shit!"

I think my hubby has a point...when it comes to old music that you have purchased over and over again, but the media matter keeps changing so that THEY CAN MAKE MORE money....

care

True enough, LOL. I owned Pink Floyd "Animals" Led Zepplin I, "Running on Empty," "Aqualung" and several others on cassette, 8-track, vinyl and CD.

I'm waiting for what's next I have to buy.

 

[Paulie]

I paid to watch National Treasure 2 in the theater. So now, when I want to watch it at home, it's not ok to d/l it so I can have it for personal use?

How many times should I pay the owner of the rights, to watch the same movie?

Now that some here are realizing the certain moral exceptions to this, can you at least understand where some file-sharers come from?

My friend has a moral right to burn a copy of a DVD movie he bought, to have for personal use. I can then borrow that copy if we agree to do that. But an anonymous person online can not lend me a copy of THEIR movie. That's different.

Please. No matter how you slice it, allowing copying of any intellectual property for whatever reason you ARE allowing it, is creating a double standard wherein you are giving OTHER reasons for when you are NOT allowed to copy it.

Either you can copy, or you can't.

True enough, LOL. I owned Pink Floyd "Animals" Led Zepplin I, "Running on Empty," "Aqualung" and several others on cassette, 8-track, vinyl and CD.

I'm waiting for what's next I have to buy.

You DON'T have to buy anything next. According to the logic being espoused on here, you can just copy it on to the next new medium "for personal use".

Just don't let anyone else use it, because then all the sudden you have broken a law.

That's *your* choice. It certainly wasn't the choice of my record company clients.

jillian, copyrighted music can be used without obtaining rights, so long as it's not being used for profit. I feel strange trying to convey law to you, but things like mixtapes and demos, where copyrighted music may actually be used, are not considered illegal use if they are not being "sold".

That's why mixtapes are not sold for money. The loophole around that one, is that companies "selling" mixtapes are actually giving the mixtape away for free, and selling you the album case, a sticker, or what have you. It's pretty standard.

Here's an example, and this is universal for all mixtape companies:

http://shop.mixtapekings.com/product_p/6733.htm

Notice at the bottom of the track list, it says:

* This Mixtape is free with the purchase of MTK sticker

 

[manifold]

Absolutely. Making an effort to change the law is acceptable. Breaking it isn't.

One who breaks an unjust law that conscience tells him is unjust, and who willingly accepts the penalty of imprisonment in order to arouse the conscience of the community over its injustice, is in reality expressing the highest respect for law. Martin Luther King, Jr.

 

[Shogun]

How do you come up with all of these cute funny, pertinent, insightful images?

google images

 

[Shogun]

Who want;s to buy music on the next great format anyway? Or, have to replace a cheap, disposable medium?


Learn from Nine Inch Nails and Radiohead. Also, I don't shed the slightest tear for overpaid rockstars who are a product of marketing rather than musicianship. If the world of music dries up and doesn't support the ashly simpsons and next flavour of the day with a sellable mtv image the so be it. I will always hate metallica for their pussified take on this issue. fuckem.

you'll never put this cat back in the bag. This shit was happening in '97 on the irc and will continue to happen even if it's purged from the world wide web. Hell, if anything, these bloated celebs need to polish their craft and be thankful anyone gives a fuck about their effort instead of sending out the litigious witch hunters for the sake of their rock and roll lifestyle. It truly is a caracature of itself.

 

[Larkinn]

One who breaks an unjust law that conscience tells him is unjust, and who willingly accepts the penalty of imprisonment in order to arouse the conscience of the community over its injustice, is in reality expressing the highest respect for law. Martin Luther King, Jr.

An unjust law is different than a law you disagree with. I don't like the copyright laws, but they aren't unjust. Significantly different than Jim Crow laws.

 

[Ravi]

One who breaks an unjust law that conscience tells him is unjust, and who willingly accepts the penalty of imprisonment in order to arouse the conscience of the community over its injustice, is in reality expressing the highest respect for law. Martin Luther King, Jr.

I agree with the sentiment, but how exactly do you equate civil rights with the right to pirate music, etc?

 

[RetiredGySgt]

I agree with the sentiment, but how exactly do you equate civil rights with the right to pirate music, etc?

If he were right and the law in question were unjust then the statement is true. He is not equating one with the other.

 

[manifold]

I agree with the sentiment, but how exactly do you equate civil rights with the right to pirate music, etc?

I don't.

I just like the quote.

 

[Ravi]

I don't.

I just like the quote.

If nothing else, you are a total pain in the tush.