So, what do you guys think about file sharing, for music for instance?
Do you think it's simple stealing, or do you think we've entered a phase in which
information can no longer be monopolized the way it used to, and we should change our
definitions?
This woman is being sued for $222,000 (\26,019,527.06) by the RIAA for illegal file sharing.
She lost the initial case but she is appealing with the help of a team of ambitious lawyers to try
to stop the RIAA's anti-piracy practices.
http://www.news.com/8301-10784_3-9791383-7.html?tag=tb
Since she can't possibly afford the expenses, she's set up a site to try to raise money, with some interesting
discussion about the issue, between pro-piracy populists, conservatives, and record company stooges trying to descourage
donators.
http://www.freejammie.com/
What do you guys think?
It's illegal, and it may be dishonest, but it's not stealing.
It's not stealing for the simple reason that it does not deprive the owner of any property.
Downloading an mp3 is not stealing a bike, it's taking a photo of that bike and building your own identical bike from scratch.
I think to most people involved in this case--judge, lawyers, jury, etc.--it is stealing. Whenever I see cases such as this it makes me wonder how such issues would be resolved if we had members of the American justice system who were more familiar with the workings of the Internet. Some of the people making the most crucial decisions in cases like these can remember when the original telephone was a big deal, so how can we expect them to grasp the nuances of file-sharing.
Just wait, in 40 years, we'll be denying people the right to reproduce holograms of their favorite music, movie, and porn actors.
They'll be saying shit like, "copying your favorite artist isn't denying them the right to be a person" or some shit like that. And we'll be the judges condemning them to jail. We won't be able to understand them the way the current judge, jury, and executioner don't understand us.
It's the same bullshit every generation. It's been happening since the begining of civilization.
How does one steal from a sandpit with infinite sand?
>>6
Build a fort around the pit and shoot anyone who tries to get in.
>>7
How does one steal from a fortified sand pit with infinite sand that has been leaking sand all over the city, and that is connected to every sand-tube in the neighborhood?
These analogies are getting interesting.
>>8
Build a mountain around the fortified sand pit making it into a fortified fallout bunker sand cave, and nuke the rest of the city, turning said errant sand, sand leaks and sand tube outputs into glass.
An army of clones and/or robots will patrol the razed city enforcing the sand monopoly.
Lets put it this way, there will be no way to guard or watch all of the sandpit full of infinite sand. Thus there will always be a way to get the sand.
moar like "how is having the same experience as someone else equal to depriving said person of the experience in question" vs "I want you to give me real life monies for something that does not exist in real life" amirite?
>>11
Construct a Von Neumann machine to convert entirety of the infinite sandpit into infinite identical copies of itself. Said machines will be loyal their creator's instructions, and will molecularly disassemble any interloper in the swarm.
I think a better question than "How is copying something that is inherently just data stealing" would be : "What kind of assholes are trying to horde an infinite resource?".
> What kind of assholes are trying to horde an infinite resource?
The kind of assholes which use parts of the infinite resource to create something that other people find entertaining.
If you spent tons of time and money building an awesome sand castle out of sand from the infinite sandbox, you'd want to charge an admission fee too.
>>15
But I've made my own castle out of my own sand that just happens to be identical, leaving yours untouched...
>>15
Actually, we are talkng about the RIAA here, not the artists.
This thread is hilarious.
>>18
Yes it is. I'm a frequent pirate so I hope the RIAA loses this case.
riaa are trying to protect the copyright and the income of the artists, im not saying that riaa is wrong.
but they SHOULD came up with a solution, otherwise they just plain fu**d. some material are so rare to be found, they only available on "that" side of the internet. if they actually win this cases... well.. start drooling on stuff that you cant afford in the internet.
"the net is vast and infinite"
ghost in the shell
>>20 riaa are trying to protect the copyright and the income of the artists, im not saying that riaa is wrong.
Do you really believe that bullshit or are you trolling? Artist, RIAA?
Did those artists pay Sony, Soundblaster, Sennheiser, intel, Microsoft any money when they actually made the music?
They're stealing the sounds from the companies that make the software and instruments.
Playing with sand is fun, until it gets in your knickers.
Playing with musicians, on the other hand, is usually still fun even after they get in your knickers.
/analogy
I think private property is becoming a less solid term in the modern world, people are realising it is inherently flawed.
Uh, you must mean "intellectual property". I'm not quite ready to rethink owning my shirt, wallet, computer, or toothpaste, thank you.
www.stealthisfilm.com
the way you have frised the question is a double edged sword no answer can be for freedom.
>>25
They probably did. Whether they legally acquired the samples depends entirely on the licence on the soundfont. I know the few I happen to have allow music to be sold without royalties going to the maker of the soundfont, but don't allow you to redisribute the soundfont itself.
The world is under a license. And who controls that license? It's licenses all the way down!
Artists with record company contracts have shitty music anyways.