Page 12 of 37 FirstFirst ... 2891011121314151622 ... LastLast
Results 276 to 300 of 901
  1. #276
    Cogito Ergo Sum LnGrrrR's Avatar
    My Team
    Boston Celtics
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Post Count
    22,399
    huh? Physical media is irrelevant to intellectual property.

    6 months or 6 seconds. An illegal copy is illegal, regardless of how little the RIAA cares about it.
    Yes, but in the real world, the ability to duplicate protected works is a much more serious issue when it's quick, cheap and easy.

    There's no backtracking from me. Copyright infringement is by colloquial definition 'theft'.
    "Colloquial" being the key word there, since we weren't talking about the "colloquial" definition.

    That post explains jack .

    Try this link:

    http://www.ehow.com/how_6522046_beco...le-author.html

    From what I can tell, once you hit that "publish" button, it's a done deal. No editing.
    If so, then I'm mistaken.

    No. The rest of your post regarding limiting the "right to read" is a huge stretch.
    What specifically did I mention about the right to read that you find is a stretch?

    I asked who are the people debating this. There is no debate here.

    It's only one blogger asking if what Amazon is doing with the cloud drive service can be seen as an illegal public performance.
    There were quite a few bloggers, actually. Do you expect me to find each instance?

    Since Google has fired up their cloud service as well, I give his and your pondering over the issue little merit.
    Ah, so it's inherently legal then, and no court case will ever be brought up over it. Good to know.

  2. #277
    Cogito Ergo Sum LnGrrrR's Avatar
    My Team
    Boston Celtics
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Post Count
    22,399
    http://www.informationweek.com/cloud...icle/229700228


    The Wall Street Journal says Apple has reached agreements with Warner Music Group, Sony Music Entertainment and EMI, and is expected to conclude a deal with Universal Music Group this week.

    Apple's compe ors in the emerging media hosting business, Amazon and Google, have gone ahead and launched their own cloud music services without the blessing of music companies, moves that appear to invite copyright litigation.
    The legality of cloud music hosting has yet be tested in court, but Amazon and Google have at least some reason to believe the law is on their side: The U.S. Supreme Court in 2009 said it was not a copyright law violation for Cablevision to store DVR recordings made by its customers.

    http://blog.chron.com/brokenrecord/2...-corporations/
    When it comes to music, however, things are, pardon the pun, a bit cloudy. Unlike a do ent you wrote or a photo you took, storing music files on a server that doesn’t belong to you raises all sorts of bizarre legal questions. The general rule, when it comes to copyright law, is that you are free to make ONE copy of any song you have purchased. Say you bought a CD and then ripped the songs from it onto your computer. That’s your copy. Making another copy of that file to move to a server somewhere is infringement, according to the music industry.
    Just a few people out there talking.

  3. #278
    Cogito Ergo Sum LnGrrrR's Avatar
    My Team
    Boston Celtics
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Post Count
    22,399
    RIAA is cool with the Apple cloud computing though...

    http://riaa.com/newsitem.php?content...F-86E4E4A74344

    Probably because Apple ponied up some licensing fees.

  4. #279
    Damns (Given): 0 Blake's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Post Count
    76,234
    Yes, but in the real world, the ability to duplicate protected works is a much more serious issue when it's quick, cheap and easy.
    No it's not.

    The amount duplicated can make it a more serious issue, not the ability.

    I thought we agreed a while back that it is rather quick, easy and cheap to make a mix tape.

    "Colloquial" being the key word there, since we weren't talking about the "colloquial" definition.
    I absolutely talked about the colloquial definition.

    You can check page 3 if you like. It's there right after I mentioned how it's often referred to as theft by law enforcement agencies.

    I've never seen anyone in any political, law enforcement, or judicial office implore others to stop calling it theft. Have you?

    What specifically did I mention about the right to read that you find is a stretch?
    our "right to read" may be limited by controlling agencies (namely, those controlling the access).
    in 50+ years?

    lol

    There were quite a few bloggers, actually. Do you expect me to find each instance?
    We got switched up on the quotes.

    Let's try again.

    You've got people who are trying to get playing cloud-storage mp3s defined as "public performance".
    Who are these people that are trying to get playing cloud-storage mp3s defined as "public performance"?

    you gave a link to that blogger and he was not trying to get playing cloud-storage mp3s defined as "public performance".

    Ah, so it's inherently legal then, and no court case will ever be brought up over it.
    Ah, no.

    Google has shown that they take a pro-active approach to making sure they abide by the law.

    If their lawyers have given them the green light to start the cloud storage service, then I give little merit to the possibility that it's illegal.

    Good to know
    You're welcome.

  5. #280
    Damns (Given): 0 Blake's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Post Count
    76,234

  6. #281
    Cogito Ergo Sum LnGrrrR's Avatar
    My Team
    Boston Celtics
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Post Count
    22,399
    No it's not.

    The amount duplicated can make it a more serious issue, not the ability.

    I thought we agreed a while back that it is rather quick, easy and cheap to make a mix tape.
    It's much easier to get mp3s out on the cloud than it is to make a mixtape for every person though. The cheaper/easier/quicker it is, the more you can duplicate.

    I've never seen anyone in any political, law enforcement, or judicial office implore others to stop calling it theft. Have you?
    Judicial probably, since theft has a definitely legal meaning.

    in 50+ years?

    lol
    If Amazon can pull illegal copies of your book without your knowledge, then they can affect your "right to read" per se.

    Frankly, if you're relying on any cloud computing, you are at the whims of the people storing that data, your ability to connect to that data, etc etc. You have less hands-on rights than you do if you were holding a book in your hands.

    you gave a link to that blogger and he was not trying to get playing cloud-storage mp3s defined as "public performance".
    Ah ok. I'll look for that guy; I read it a few weeks ago.

    If their lawyers have given them the green light to start the cloud storage service, then I give little merit to the possibility that it's illegal.
    But the law isn't defined yet, since there's no precedent set for this sort of incident. I'm hoping you're right.

  7. #282
    Cogito Ergo Sum LnGrrrR's Avatar
    My Team
    Boston Celtics
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Post Count
    22,399
    but not really debating.
    Not really a debate until someone brings it to court. And if Google ponies up license money, then the RIAA beast will be sated. (Although, I'm not sure why they should have to pay license fees...)

  8. #283
    Damns (Given): 0 Blake's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Post Count
    76,234
    It's much easier to get mp3s out on the cloud than it is to make a mixtape for every person though. The cheaper/easier/quicker it is, the more you can duplicate.
    And it probably will even get faster than that.

    But again, speed is not the issue.

    Judicial probably, since theft has a definitely legal meaning.
    neh, I haven't found any judge that said "stop calling it theft".

    I do know of one that said there's a legal difference.

    I also know of one that called infringement "no less.....than garden variety theft."

    If Amazon can pull illegal copies of your book without your knowledge, then they can affect your "right to read" per se.
    If it was an illegal copy, then you never really had the right to read it.

    Frankly, if you're relying on any cloud computing, you are at the whims of the people storing that data, your ability to connect to that data, etc etc. You have less hands-on rights than you do if you were holding a book in your hands.
    so what? what does that have to do with your right to read?

    Ah ok. I'll look for that guy; I read it a few weeks ago.
    so it's just one guy wants it to be a "public performance?"

    is he a blogger too?

    But the law isn't defined yet, since there's no precedent set for this sort of incident. I'm hoping you're right.
    It seems to me to be not much more than an online storage shed where only the user has the key.

    I don't see it as a big deal.

  9. #284
    LMAO koriwhat's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Post Count
    37,901
    Guys like the channelsurfing.net owner?

    Now, you explain to me why the government has to foot the bill for this instead of Disney, News Corp, etc?
    awesome comment right here hahhaha

    "What's that strange sound I hear? It's like the stomping of Nazi-style jackboots on my broadband connection :o

    No, it's OK. It's just the USA's incompetent Immigration and Customs Enforcement guys tripping over the wireless connection and falling flat on their face ....

    Whoever would've guessed the biggest copier of Fascist Germany would be the Jewish community in the US of A? If Hitler had any kids I'm sure they could sue for breach of copyright lol."

  10. #285
    Cogito Ergo Sum LnGrrrR's Avatar
    My Team
    Boston Celtics
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Post Count
    22,399
    And it probably will even get faster than that.

    But again, speed is not the issue.
    Since speed affects how much/often you can duplicate, it's tangent.

    neh, I haven't found any judge that said "stop calling it theft".
    Well, lawyers are technically part of the judicial system, are they not? I haven't found many lawyers who are filing these cases as theft. Feel free to point out otherwise.

    I do know of one that said there's a legal difference.

    I also know of one that called infringement "no less.....than garden variety theft."

    If it was an illegal copy, then you never really had the right to read it.
    Sure, but you still had it, and then you didn't. Pretty sure that policemen aren't going to your home to confiscate your hardbacks, illegal or not.

    so what? what does that have to do with your right to read?
    Well, it doesn't necessarily diminish your "right" to read, but your capability to do certainly.

    I'm not sure about the ramifications of a publisher editing an online book. For instance, if you own the 1st ed of a book, and the publisher updates to 2nd ed, but you want to keep 1st ed, do you have a right to keep that license? What if they longer store the 1st ed digitally; are you able to recoup the cost of the book? Etc etc.


    so it's just one guy wants it to be a "public performance?"

    is he a blogger too?
    There's probably more out there. Not sure why you're denigrating bloggers either, offhand. There are lots of non-blogging hack journalists out there too.

    It seems to me to be not much more than an online storage shed where only the user has the key.

    I don't see it as a big deal.
    I don't either, but that said, I'm not sure why the RIAA wants Apple/Google to get licenses. Probably because if Google hosts an illegal mp3, they may be found liable.

  11. #286
    Damns (Given): 0 Blake's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Post Count
    76,234
    Well, lawyers are technically part of the judicial system, are they not? I haven't found many lawyers who are filing these cases as theft. Feel free to point out otherwise.
    There are no prosecutors trying infringement cases as theft.

    There are no prosecutors out there that will tell you "don't call it theft."

    There are prosecutors that do flat out call it theft.

    Sure, but you still had it
    illegally

    and then you didn't.
    because it's illegal

    Pretty sure that policemen aren't going to your home to confiscate your hardbacks, illegal or not.
    Police? Not sure where you are going with this crazy straw.

    To be clear, are you saying that if you knowlingly own an illegal hardback that you should have the right to keep it and read it?

    Legally, nobody will probably ever care.

    Does that make it right? Morally, I'd say no, but that's up to you.

    In the digital future, it's true they'll be more likely to cut that crap out

    Well, it doesn't necessarily diminish your "right" to read, but your capability to do certainly.
    If you properly pay for a copy of the book, how exactly is your capablity to read it limited?

    I'm not sure about the ramifications of a publisher editing an online book. For instance, if you own the 1st ed of a book, and the publisher updates to 2nd ed, but you want to keep 1st ed, do you have a right to keep that license? What if they longer store the 1st ed digitally; are you able to recoup the cost of the book? Etc etc.
    Those are questions an author needs to ask any way, regardless if it's online or hard copy.

    It's basically a civil matter that the author and publisher should hammer out during contract negotiations:

    "8. What About Revisions and Revised Editions?"

    http://www.ivanhoffman.com/points.html

    There's probably more out there. Not sure why you're denigrating bloggers either, offhand. There are lots of non-blogging hack journalists out there too.
    Why should anyone care if some blogger questions if playing cloud-storage mp3s defined as "public performance".

    That's different from someone actually trying to get playing cloud-storage mp3s defined as "public performance".

    I assumed it would be a politician or a party with a vested interest. Not a blogger.

    I don't either, but that said, I'm not sure why the RIAA wants Apple/Google to get licenses. Probably because if Google hosts an illegal mp3, they may be found liable.
    I think Google wants to make back up copies of the music to protect the consumer in case something happens to the servers holding the original uploaded material.

    I think Google wants to pay up front to be able to make these backup copies and not have any future legal issues with the RIAA.

    The RIAA is an en y representing the four major recording labels. From what I can tell, they turned down a $100 million check from Google a month or so ago.

    I think the RIAA will end up taking Google's money if they haven't already and allow Google to make these copies.

  12. #287
    🏆🏆🏆🏆🏆 ElNono's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Post Count
    152,607
    RIAA is going to want a per-copy fee, IMO. They know they have Google by the balls since Google has to compete with Apple and Apple already has a deal in place.

    Also, don't forget about ASCAP. Google has a deal for YouTube, but that doesn't mean the same deal applies for non-YouTube content.

  13. #288
    Cogito Ergo Sum LnGrrrR's Avatar
    My Team
    Boston Celtics
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Post Count
    22,399
    To be clear, are you saying that if you knowlingly own an illegal hardback that you should have the right to keep it and read it?
    Nope. FWIW, those users didn't knowingly own an illegal hardback. It happened to be an illegal copy they purchased. When Google found out, they took the book back.

    Again, I have no problem with this, but it's pretty obvious that cloud computing means less "ownership" of the media. (Ie. for now, I can't sell any "itunes" I've bought to someone else.)

    If you properly pay for a copy of the book, how exactly is your capablity to read it limited?
    Ultimately, while you may "own" the book, that ownership is dependent on you having access to a computer, the servers all working, etc etc. You don't really have to worry about that when you have the book in your hands.


    Why should anyone care if some blogger questions if playing cloud-storage mp3s defined as "public performance".

    That's different from someone actually trying to get playing cloud-storage mp3s defined as "public performance".
    How about this guy?

    http://www.techdirt.com/articles/201...formance.shtml

    Not quite just a blogger.

  14. #289
    Veteran
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Post Count
    97,514
    Apple won a patent that allows Apple to turn off recording remotely, without permission.

    Coupled with geo-location services, could be used to "blackout" recordings in areas around movies and concerts.

  15. #290
    Damns (Given): 0 Blake's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Post Count
    76,234
    Nope. FWIW, those users didn't knowingly own an illegal hardback. It happened to be an illegal copy they purchased. When Google found out, they took the book back.
    Understandably so.

    Again, I have no problem with this, but it's pretty obvious that cloud computing means less "ownership" of the media. (Ie. for now, I can't sell any "itunes" I've bought to someone else.)

    Ultimately, while you may "own" the book, that ownership is dependent on you having access to a computer, the servers all working, etc etc. You don't really have to worry about that when you have the book in your hands.
    Interesting....sounds like cloud computing could spell the end of Half Price Books unless they can adapt.

    If consumers are willing to take chances on online books stored on a server while losing out on any possible resell value, then that's on the consumer.





    How about this guy?

    http://www.techdirt.com/articles/201...formance.shtml

    Not quite just a blogger.
    Is he actively trying to get it called "public performance"?

  16. #291
    Damns (Given): 0 Blake's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Post Count
    76,234
    awesome comment right here hahhaha

    "What's that strange sound I hear? It's like the stomping of Nazi-style jackboots on my broadband connection :o

    No, it's OK. It's just the USA's incompetent Immigration and Customs Enforcement guys tripping over the wireless connection and falling flat on their face ....

    Whoever would've guessed the biggest copier of Fascist Germany would be the Jewish community in the US of A? If Hitler had any kids I'm sure they could sue for breach of copyright lol."
    I'm serious when I say that I'd really like to see you post in here more often.

  17. #292
    Veteran velik_m's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Post Count
    7,038
    bump
    While ReDigi claims to be protected under the first-sale doctrine, the recording industry claims that first sale only protects the sale of a particular copy of a product.
    http://www.extremetech.com/computing...usic-purchases

    i better not move those file, lest they be copied first...

  18. #293
    Veteran
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Post Count
    97,514
    http://www.mozilla.org/sopa/

    ====

    Under SOPA, private companies will be able to force payment processors to shut down payments to websites by merely claiming the site “engages in, enables or facilitates” infringement. This broad provision could target websites behind important Internet projects such as Tor, the anonymity network that has been vital for protecting activists from government surveillance in Tunisia and Egypt. While Tor is designed to promote free expression, privacy, and human rights (and has had an amazing impact on the Arab Spring), it can unfortunately also be used to mask one’s IP address when downloading copyrighted content, such as music. Corporations concerned about users illegally downloading music could use SOPA to force Visa and Mastercard to cut off donations to Torproject.org—despite Tor’s aim to facilitate human rights activism, not piracy.

    Emerging nonprofit whistleblower sites could find themselves in the jaws of SOPA if they post any do ents related to corporate corruption or law breaking, if those do ents contain trade secrets or are copyrightable. In 2010, Microsoft unsuccessfully tried to knock the whistleblower website Cryptome offline in a comparable situation. Now, the offended corporation may simply send a notice to the payment processor alleging the posted do ents violate their rights and the processors will have five days to cut off the whistleblowing site’s service. Those sites could be starved out of existence before they can ever gain traction to defend themselves. Potential whistleblowers wishing to prevent the next Enron could be shut out of the Internet, even though the Enron whistleblower herself has said how important sites like WikiLeaks can be for exposing corporate wrongdoing.

    https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2011/1...d-human-rights

  19. #294
    🏆🏆🏆🏆🏆 ElNono's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Post Count
    152,607
    All in the name of "theft"...

  20. #295
    Veteran velik_m's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Post Count
    7,038
    Copyright isn't working, says European Commission

    People have come to see copyright as a tool of punishment, Europe's technology chief has said in her strongest-yet attack on the current copyright system.

    Digital agenda commissioner Neelie Kroes said on Saturday that the creative industries had to embrace rather than resist new technological ways of distributing artistic works. She added that the existing copyright system was not rewarding the vast majority of artists.

    "Is the current copyright system the right and only tool to achieve our objectives? Not really," Kroes said in a speech to the Forum D'Avignon thinktank. "Citizens increasingly hear the word copyright and hate what is behind it."

    http://www.zdnet.co.uk/blogs/communi...sion-10024835/

  21. #296
    Veteran velik_m's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Post Count
    7,038
    Swiss Govt: Downloading Movies and Music Will Stay Legal

    ...
    The overall conclusion of the study is that the current copyright law, under which downloading copyrighted material for personal use is permitted, doesn’t have to change.

    Their report begins with noting that when it comes to copying files, the Internet has proven a game-changer. While the photocopier, audio cassette tape and VCR allowed users to make good quality copies of various media, these devices lacked a in-built distribution method. The world-wide web changed all that.

    Distribution method or not, the entertainment industries have opposed all these technological inventions out of fear that their businesses would be crushed. This is not the right response according to the Swiss government, which favors the option of putting technology to good use instead of taking the repressive approach.
    ...

    http://torrentfreak.com/swiss-govt-d...-legal-111202/

  22. #297
    Veteran velik_m's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Post Count
    7,038
    Dodd slams Google over legislatoin
    ...
    Dodd, who assumed his post in March, notes that the idea of blocking sites is by no means unprecedented. Other supporters of the legislation note Internet providers already block criminal content like child pornography. Citing a more controversial practice, Dodd notes "When the Chinese told Google that they had to block sites or they couldn't do [business] in their country, they managed to figure out how to block sites."
    ...
    Copyright is a limited right, patent is an unlimited right.
    ...
    http://www.variety.com/article/VR1118047080

    MPAA: Let's be more like China.
    Last edited by velik_m; 12-11-2011 at 12:35 PM. Reason: forgot to add the link

  23. #298
    🏆🏆🏆🏆🏆 ElNono's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Post Count
    152,607
    Two SOPA Writers Become Entertainment Lobbyists

    "According to Politico, 'A pair of senior Hill aides at the center of a brewing battle between Hollywood and Silicon Valley are packing their bags for K Street, where they’ll work for two of the entertainment lobby shops trying to influence their former colleagues in Congress on the very same issue. Allison Halataei, former deputy chief of staff and parliamentarian to House Judiciary Chairman Lamar Smith (R-Texas), and Lauren Pastarnack, a Republican who has served as a senior aide on the Senate Judiciary Committee, worked on online piracy bills that would push Internet companies like Google, Yahoo and Facebook to shut down websites that offer illegal copies of blockbuster films and chart-topping songs.' Techdirt adds, 'Pastarnack went to the MPAA where she'll be "director of government relations" and Halataei to the NMPA (music publishers and songwriters) where she'll be "chief liaison to Capitol Hill." The Politico article linked above notes that this kind of "revolving door" is all too common. It may not be directly corrupt, but to the public it sure feels corrupt.'"

  24. #299
    Veteran velik_m's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Post Count
    7,038
    This is an interesting article about how the younger generations view the copyright:

    The Generational Divide in Copyright Morality
    ...
    I don’t pretend to know what the solution to the file-sharing issue is. (Although I’m increasingly convinced that copy protection isn’t it.)

    I do know, though, that the TV, movie and record companies’ problems have only just begun. Right now, the customers who can’t even *see* why file sharing might be wrong are still young. But 10, 20, 30 years from now, that crowd will be *everybody*. What will happen then?

    http://pogue.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/...ight-morality/

  25. #300
    Damns (Given): 0 Blake's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Post Count
    76,234
    interesting assumption that young customers 30 years from now will still not see why file sharing might be wrong

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •