Forum Settings
       
« Previous 1 2
Reply To Thread

RIAA > KazaaFollow

QuoteReply
#1 Jul 27 2006 at 12:43 PM Rating: Decent
Jophiel
View User Forum
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
The Trib totally copied off of the LA times and wrote:
The world's major music and film companies have settled a lawsuit against one of the largest unauthorized peer-to-peer networks, Kazaa, entertainment industry representatives announced today.

The settlement with Australia-based Sharman Networks Ltd., Kazaa's operators, concludes years of litigation against a company that studios and labels claim was responsible for massive copyright infringement. Kazaa, like Napster before it, had been emblematic of music and film piracy to computer users worldwide.

Under the terms of the settlement, Kazaa will introduce filtering technologies to ensure that users can no longer share copyrighted music, film or software files. Sharman will also pay $115 million to the recording industry, according to sources familiar with the negotiations. Future payments to the film and software industries may be forthcoming.
Link-a-licious

And, for the "play at home" portion of the program, I'm not arguing legalities. But, in your opinion, is it unethical to download a recording which is unavailable via regular channels such as a discontinued B-Side, live recording from a television performance, long defunct group no longer carried by stores, etc?
So is it?
Yes:8 (13.6%)
No:51 (86.4%)
Total:59


Edited, Jul 27th 2006 at 1:46pm EDT by Jophiel
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
▲ Page top
QuoteReply
#3 Jul 27 2006 at 12:53 PM Rating: Good
__DEL__1709511392366
Sage
****
6,471 posts
Quote:
Under the terms of the settlement, Kazaa will introduce filtering technologies to ensure that users can no longer share copyrighted music, film or software files


Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't that EVERYTHING that Kazaa does?

This sucks quite a bit. I use Kazaa.

EDIT: Err...Youshutup, it seems that I need a new filesharing program. What do you suggest?


Edited, Jul 27th 2006 at 1:54pm EDT by Eske
▲ Page top
#4REDACTED, Posted: Jul 27 2006 at 12:53 PM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) I don't care how desperate I am, I will never go into a music store and buy a t.A.T.u cd...
#5Jophiel, Posted: Jul 27 2006 at 12:55 PM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) Back in the Napster days, when I was downloading nostolgia hits from the 80's, I remarked to a friend that the primary purpose of Napster to me was being able to listen to embarassing music without getting stink-eye from thr 17 year old at Best Buy.
QuoteReply
#6 Jul 27 2006 at 12:56 PM Rating: Good
__DEL__1591804171578
Scholar
**
310 posts
I've always felt that downloading something that is no longer commercial viable is not unethical, because I'm not depriving the copyright holder of any profits. I suppose there is always the chance the the holder might be looking into some sort of later rerelease, but I think a little common sense can tell you when that is likely and when it is not.

I guess the outside argument could be that the copyright holder is interested in not seeing further distribution, because that distribution could negatively impact sales of their current commercial ventures. I don't personally find that convincing though...my appetite for new music/movies/games isn't likely to be filled by crappy 70s songs and pong.
▲ Page top
#7REDACTED, Posted: Jul 27 2006 at 1:03 PM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) 2.8M people at the moment actually.
#8REDACTED, Posted: Jul 27 2006 at 1:03 PM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) I Hearted Napster.
QuoteReply
#9 Jul 27 2006 at 1:08 PM Rating: Decent
__DEL__1592347379217
View User Forum
Scholar
***
1,180 posts
Quote:
Who stil uses kazaa anyway?


The only people I know that still use Kazaa, ***** constantly about getting another compter virus.

I only ever downloaded songs I couldn't get on a CD or singles where I know the band sucked @$$ except for the one song. Havn't downloaded any music for years now.
▲ Page top
QuoteReply
#10 Jul 27 2006 at 1:14 PM Rating: Excellent
Jophiel
View User Forum
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
I could argue it either way:

Point: If I download something with no chance of commercial release (say, a 1995 performance on Saturday Night Live of Deep Blue Something's "Breakfast at Tiffany's")* then there is no financial loss to the copyright holders.

Counter-Point: Copyright is about maintaining control of a recording (or book, etc), not just about who gets what money. If the copyright holder doesn't wish it released - for any reason - then it's not my place to say it's okay for me to get a copy because "it's not hurting them".


*No, I don't have a copy
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
▲ Page top
QuoteReply
#11 Jul 27 2006 at 1:25 PM Rating: Decent
MYteddy
Scholar
****
6,129 posts
Depriving the music industry and artists of thier newest jet doesn't hurt me in the least. It is bad, but that would be very hypocritical of me to say that it should be stopped.

There is also a good side to file-sharing. There are many bands (my friends included) that have used file-sharing networks to help distribute thier music and get the word out. That's how my best friend's band got signed.

It is bad. He uses it of course, but he also hates it when he tries to sell a cd at a show and a kid says, "Nah, I will get it off my buddies pc. He has it."
____________________________
Alla's Arena/PVP Forum

SO I PLAY WoW COOL EH!?

Let that beat build.

Xbox Live: kyNsdub
▲ Page top
QuoteReply
#12 Jul 27 2006 at 1:26 PM Rating: Good
__DEL__1709511392366
Sage
****
6,471 posts
Jophiel wrote:
I could argue it either way:

Point: If I download something with no chance of commercial release (say, a 1995 performance on Saturday Night Live of Deep Blue Something's "Breakfast at Tiffany's")* then there is no financial loss to the copyright holders.

Counter-Point: Copyright is about maintaining control of a recording (or book, etc), not just about who gets what money. If the copyright holder doesn't wish it released - for any reason - then it's not my place to say it's okay for me to get a copy because "it's not hurting them".


*No, I don't have a copy


Waited a little while to see if we'd intelligently debate your posed question, then when no one came through, decided you'd just have the debate with yourself, eh? :P

Quote:
The only people I know that still use Kazaa, ***** constantly about getting another compter virus.


I've never had a problem with viruses, but what bothered me about the program was that (record companies I suspect) had flooded the system with bogus song files. So if you searched for any recent song, you'd get sacked with 10,000 of the exact same "25 minutes of silence" in varying file sizes.

I had actually developed a knack for sifting through them to find the true song files, but alas, my talents are of no further use.
▲ Page top
QuoteReply
#13 Jul 27 2006 at 1:32 PM Rating: Excellent
Jophiel
View User Forum
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Eske wrote:
Waited a little while to see if we'd intelligently debate your posed question, then when no one came through, decided you'd just have the debate with yourself, eh?
It was a delayed response to Yaltus who was also weighing both sides Smiley: tongue

Besides, for as slow as it's been, talking to myself may be my best option for any conversation, much less intelligent ones.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
▲ Page top
QuoteReply
#14 Jul 27 2006 at 1:35 PM Rating: Good
__DEL__1591804171578
Scholar
**
310 posts
Jophiel wrote:

Counter-Point: Copyright is about maintaining control of a recording (or book, etc), not just about who gets what money. If the copyright holder doesn't wish it released - for any reason - then it's not my place to say it's okay for me to get a copy because "it's not hurting them".


Once they've released the song at all, be it on an old EP, TV performance, whatever, isn't the cat out of the bag? Sure, copyright should allow them some control, but surely not to the point of being able to "unrelease" something?
▲ Page top
#15REDACTED, Posted: Jul 27 2006 at 1:39 PM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) What's wrong with them having control over how many they decide to release?
QuoteReply
#17 Jul 27 2006 at 1:47 PM Rating: Excellent
Jophiel
View User Forum
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Yaltus wrote:
Once they've released the song at all, be it on an old EP, TV performance, whatever, isn't the cat out of the bag? Sure, copyright should allow them some control, but surely not to the point of being able to "unrelease" something?
It's not "unreleased", it's no longer being distributed by the guy who has the right to make that call. It's not as though they're demanding that all existing copies be destroyed.

Although, in my Deep Blue Something scenario, that might not be a bad way to go.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
▲ Page top
QuoteReply
#18 Jul 27 2006 at 1:51 PM Rating: Good
__DEL__1591804171578
Scholar
**
310 posts
MentalFrog wrote:

What's wrong with them having control over how many they decide to release?


Hmm...I guess what I'm wrestling with is what is accomplished by restricting access to a product you made that you no longer use commercially, but had released at one time.

Outside of the idea of just "we made it, we don't want others to have it" (which I don't care for at all...copyright is supposed to encourage creativity, not stifle it), what reasons might a group have for not wanting further copies to exist? If they don't agree with their previous politics, or if they've changed their sound/style, or if they just think their old stuff sucks, it seems to me like the existence of the originals is already enough to harm the interests they claim they are trying to protect.

I feel like I'm leaving out some sort of critical distinction though - I'm not quite comfortable with my own argument. Something about it feels weak...probably the fact that my gut reaction to your question is "Nothing is wrong with that." Odd disconnect there.
▲ Page top
QuoteReply
#19 Jul 27 2006 at 1:59 PM Rating: Decent
Jawbox
Scholar
****
5,677 posts
I always go back and forth on this issue. I can see both sides.

I suppose if I had to pick, I'd say it's ethical to copy and distribute movies and music so long as no one is making money off a given "trade." I understand that Kazaa and the others are businesses, but they offer a service to conncet peers to each other. They do not sell individual songs or movies to download without the permission of the copyright holder.

So to me, it's just like a much larger scale version of when cassette recorders or VCR's first hit the home market. People will copy and trade movies and music, but they won't stop buying it outright either. I know that personally, if it's a band I really like I'd much rather have their new album and all the packaging that goes with it, and when an exciting new movie comes out I'll go watch it on the big screen in the theater or buy it on pay-per-view.
▲ Page top
#20REDACTED, Posted: Jul 27 2006 at 2:02 PM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) /nod
QuoteReply
#21 Jul 27 2006 at 2:06 PM Rating: Good
__DEL__1591804171578
Scholar
**
310 posts
MentalFrog wrote:
No copyright is supposed to protect the creators. It has nothing to do with creativity. And they should have the right to protect their content in whatever distribution and/or quantity they desire.


The U.S. Constitution, Article 1, Section 8 wrote:
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;


I suppose there is some room for multiple interpretations there (isn't there always with the Constitution?), but that first part would suggest that the entire reason we are protecting the creators is so they have a reason to create.

Edited, Jul 27th 2006 at 3:06pm EDT by Yaltus
▲ Page top
QuoteReply
#22 Jul 27 2006 at 2:10 PM Rating: Good
__DEL__1709511392366
Sage
****
6,471 posts
With CD prices passing the $20 mark in many record stores, I think the losses caused by file-sharing are just desserts for the recording industry.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I feel like I recall some kind of legal action a little ways back which ended with some record label or store offering refunds for overcharging customers. It would be odd though, because I don't think there's any precedent for something like that.

Thank god for used CD's on Ebay.
▲ Page top
#23REDACTED, Posted: Jul 27 2006 at 2:12 PM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) As a parallel, I usually get my used games from this place since the prices are cheap. Canadian prices too! Whee!
QuoteReply
#24 Jul 27 2006 at 2:24 PM Rating: Good
__DEL__1591804171578
Scholar
**
310 posts
Wow, that site is awesome. Thanks ^^
▲ Page top
QuoteReply
#25 Jul 27 2006 at 2:35 PM Rating: Excellent
Danalog
Code Monkey
Avatar
****
7,476 posts
Lots of the artists I listen to encourage you to download their out of print songs, some even putting them up on their webpages. I don't really see anything wrong with it anyway.
____________________________
Do what now?
▲ Page top
QuoteReply
#26 Jul 27 2006 at 3:03 PM Rating: Decent
__DEL__1626654210230
Scholar
**
557 posts
[sarcasm]Sweet.[/sarcasm]

Next it will be limewire and emule that might be attacked by the RIAA. Perfect timing considering sony's whole Rootkit incident made me scared to buy any new 'CD'.

(I wouldnt be suprised if sony had stakes in quite a few major record labels besides their own).
▲ Page top
« Previous 1 2
Reply To Thread

Colors Smileys Quote OriginalQuote Checked Help

 

Recent Visitors: 351 All times are in CST
Anonymous Guests (351)
© 2024 Fanbyte LLC