Reply With Quote
I was answering to the question of what the harm might be to download a video that isn't for sale.
If you want to argue that making a copy of someone elses intellectual property does not affect original value, then i would disagree.
Actually, appreciation or depreciation has nothing to do with it. Ultimately, the commercial value is strictly determined by the rights holder, who is the one with exclusive rights of distribution.
There's an interesting report, fairly recent, describing piracy as a market failure, not an legal one. (link)
Brand diminishing, etc is in the realm of trademarks. A different can of worms.
I was answering to the question of what the harm might be to download a video that isn't for sale.
If you want to argue that making a copy of someone elses intellectual property does not affect original value, then i would disagree.
If Blake was sheriff, there would have been a lot of teenagers in jail for their mixtapes.
I thought about that earlier.
Probably not.
But if I was judge/jury I would most likely find them guilty.
Obviously, irreparable harm was done to record companies during the 80's due to the scourge of mixtapes.
Record companies' primary function these days is to force-feed mainstream radio playlists through what amounts to extortion. The more irrelevant they become due to the Internet, the better it will be for music in general.
They're just trying to make a few more bucks before they fall. 'em and good riddance.
Actually a mix tape made for personal use would most likely be alright. If you give that mix tape away, it would be wrong.Obviously, irreparable harm was done to record companies during the 80's due to the scourge of mixtapes.
Lol you still having difficulty with this
Not so sure he's having difficulty with it as much as everyone but you just thinks its a stupid position.
thinking it's a stupid position would be a stupid position to take.
lol you not realizing the joke about mixtapes in the 80s, since most were given away
you made a joke? I don't see it.
please explain the punch line
I'm going to guess you weren't around in the 80's.
"Mixtapes" were rather popular, and one gave them to someone they liked in order to express how they felt.
The humor lies in the idea of the fed finding out said 15 yr old gave his sweetheart a mixtape (with copyrighted songs on it, GASP!), and the fed busting him and sending him to jail for years due to it.
No wonder I didn't get it.
I never implied that a 15 year old would deserve jail time for giving away an illegal mixtape to a girlfriend.
It might have been a solid zinger had I done so.
Darn it all to heck.
You agree that said person is a thief, and youve said thieves deserve jail time.
That's the problem with law Blake. They won't just use the law the way you think they will, to go after the "bad guys". They'll go after anyone that they can, the easier the better, in order to intimate others.
Heck, they already have.
You sure did you just didn't realize it.
I don't believe I said all theft deserves jail time.
If I did feel free to point it out so that I can back pedal accordingly.
I would say your issue is with the law enforcement. I won't argue with you there.That's the problem with law Blake. They won't just use the law the way you think they will, to go after the "bad guys". They'll go after anyone that they can, the easier the better, in order to intimate others.
Heck, they already have.
The questions you've been asking though have pertained to what is legal and what's not.
I sure didn't.
So what limits would you put on it? Feel free to clarify.
Considering the OP was about a real-world instance, I thought we were talking in terms of real-world results, ie. enforcement.
Limits?
Most illegal downloaders that are found guilty in court are fined. From what I've read, the jail time has come to the ones running the websites that have been gateways for rampant illegal downloads.
Some of the fines have been extremely excessive imo, but I can't think of any instance where someone was given jail time that didn't appear to deserve it.
So to summarize, you think that it should not be illegal to download or copy copyrighted material and I do. Is that it?Considering the OP was about a real-world instance, I thought we were talking in terms of real-world results, ie. enforcement.
What's with the "rampant" qualifier? What makes it rampant?
After all, if I have a website with music on it, but I only get 3 hits a day, does that make me any better than someone who puts up the same song and gets 3,000 hits a day?
What about that case where the old lady was being fined millions of dollars because her son used Napster?
Nice strawman!
I obviously think that, in some cases, downloading illegally should be punished. However, I don't think that we should change the way it's been done, and start having the federal government take on cases. I'm fine with the way it works now, where a company that thinks someone is dloading can go after them for civil losses.
There are some things that, while I might not agree with them, I still don't want a law for. I realize that trying to create a law to prevent these actions will just catch a lot of innocent people and have unintended consequences. Frankly, most big record/movie companies have the pockets to hire lawyers to go after any big fish that is severely hurting them.
This is the example I was thinking when I used the word 'rampant':
http://hothardware.com/News/Pirate-B...ime-And-Fines/
I have no problem with pirate bay founders going to jail in Sweden.
No, you are no better or worse than the other person.After all, if I have a website with music on it, but I only get 3 hits a day, does that make me any better than someone who puts up the same song and gets 3,000 hits a day?
The only difference is that the one with the 3k hits is more likely to get caught.
Excessive fine, imo.What about that case where the old lady was being fined millions of dollars because her son used Napster?
Still an illegal activity.
I wasn't making an argument! I think I was pretty clearly wanting clarification on what your stance is!Nice strawman!
At this point, I'd rather just get to the point instead of answering some more of your silly examples regarding 15 year olds living in the 80s.
The issue of how illegal downloading should be enforced is a seperate issue from what you've been asking.I obviously think that, in some cases, downloading illegally should be punished. However, I don't think that we should change the way it's been done, and start having the federal government take on cases. I'm fine with the way it works now, where a company that thinks someone is dloading can go after them for civil losses.
There are some things that, while I might not agree with them, I still don't want a law for. I realize that trying to create a law to prevent these actions will just catch a lot of innocent people and have unintended consequences. Frankly, most big record/movie companies have the pockets to hire lawyers to go after any big fish that is severely hurting them.
To clarify, this is a question to clarify:
Do you agree that the 15 year old giving a mixtape to his girlfriend is illegally infringing on copyrights? Yes or no.
Blake: Sure giving a mixtape is illegally infringing on their rights.
Now, how could a law be drafted that would prevent that kid from getting possibly thrown in jail, while still getting the "rampant" piraters?
Let's argue it. How does it affect 'original value'?
Actually, could you describe first what you call 'original value'?
Hehe. Someone's about to open up a can of worms...
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions