Originally posted by dlloyd
if any one of you started recording would you like the idea of having your music downloaded free when you could be making $20 off them?
Originally posted by Stridder44
Now what I never got is why the RIAA isnt comming after the stream ripper programs and the internet raido stations. Do you know how easy it is to rip music from an internet raido stream?? (hint: INSANLY!!!!!)
Originally posted by Ripcord
Some countries, like Germany, have imposed a tax on every blank CDR sold that supposedly goes to pay media industries for supposed copyright violations. Essentially I'm being told that I, as a CDR consumer, am assumed to be a criminal - I can't possibly be buying a blank CDR for any purpose other than stealing...
Originally posted by d8n_two
Well, the "blank media" tax doesn't exist everywhere. Besides, you can't assume that because a person pays a tax for CDRs that it makes up for downloading free music, and therefore it's not stealing. One can't excuse the other.
I'm fairly neutral in this debate, in that I think the RIAA is crap and shouldn't go around suing 12-year-olds,
d8n_two
Originally posted by wiz7dome
Using that same example, if someone saw a CD in my unlocked car and took it would that be a violation of the Copyright Act?
Originally posted by nervus
...(And believe me they know the difference between right and wrong: they buy their CD's).
Greetings
nervus
As for the laws in your country, I feel for you. Is it not understood that there are many legitimate uses to those media that have nothing to do with the music industry or piracy? What was the public debate like in passing those laws? Also, is that just in the Netherlands or throughout the EU? Just curious.
Originally posted by arden
What band are your friends in, d8n?
Originally posted by d8n_two
According to copyright laws, part of the rights held by a copyright owner is the ability to say how and when their product is distributed. Most P2P programs are a form of distribution. Whether it is used to distribute workload (distributive computing) or files, distribution is what these programs do. When a person knowingly shares a file that has a copyright held by by someone other than themself, they are opening an illegal distribution channel. It's not that much different than a guy in the alley selling burned copies of albums.
d8n_two
Originally posted by Satcomer
I agree with your position, just not your wording to convey it. I'm going to play devil's advocate for a minute.
IMHO your above analogy is flawed. The person in the alley is SELLING the burned copies is doing it for PROFIT. A P2P network (by the vast use of it) is NOT getting a fee from distribution of the songs. The real argument should be a person PAYING for the P2P program. That's were the fee comes from. There should be the argument.