|
RIAA gives up on suing users
Music industry drops effort to sue song swappers, focuses on ISPs
i wonder how this goes for the for profit version that was being described in piracy round table. you know the one that said we will do what the RIAA was doing but pocket a portion of the money for ourselves. |
old news.
|
riaa fucked
|
Quote:
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/12...egal_campaign/ This was only announced Friday... Quote:
|
The record industry waited too long to start acting. Had they started suing people and and sites back when things like Napster were just getting started they may have been able to curb it, but they didn't and by the time they started acting Pandora's box was already open.
I'm curious to see what their new strategy will be. |
Quote:
People weren't sued and those high profile court cases that didn't happen didn't advertise P2P to people who wouldn't have known about it, thus increasing the usage. |
Quote:
|
its about time
|
|
Quote:
I understand there was piracy and music trading before napster, but napster really took it mainstream and made it part of every day society. Millions of people suddenly started using these programs and the music industry stood by and let bands like Metallica do the fighting for them. It wasn't until after Metallica and Dr. Dre started going after Napster that the record labels stepped in and helped get them shut down. The day Napster started raising venture capitol the record companies should have gotten together and sued anyone and everyone who had anything to do with the program including the users. They needed to send a message right then and failed to do so. They were undereducated on the technology and behind the power curve on how things were transforming on the internet and it cost them. |
Quote:
I look forward to the day he is time shifted off this board. |
Quote:
the printing press was called a piracy tool when it was first created cable tv was called piracy when it first came out the vcr was called a piracy tool when it first came out. Each resulted in content industry making way more money then if they had stopped it. smart people figuire out how to use the technology rather then fight it. |
Quote:
The printing press: Most people couldn't then (and can't even now) afford a printing press. Even if they could there was an inherent cost to operating it and distributing the material you printed with it so it was never (and still is not) a very big piracy tool. Cable TV: This one kind of throws me for a loop. I have never heard of people saying cable TV was piracy. I have heard of it about those old satellite dishes that could pick up a ton of stuff once you had them hooked up, but Cable has pretty much always been regulated and the channels on it pay for content so I'm not sure how this was considered piracy when it first came out. And even if when it did come out they stole the content they broadcast, it wasn't long until they were paying for the content they were broadcasting. VCR: It was a scare at first, but it wasn't long until they realized that it was like the audio cassette recorder/player. It is not a very good tool for piracy. You have to own 2 VCRs, get a copy of the movie, buy a blank tape and then spend 2 hours making one copy. Not very effective at all. You could record TV shows and fast forward past the commercials and I think this is something that they are still wrestling with today because of Tivo and DVRs and such. But when it comes to pirating movies the VCR was not a very efficient tool. Here is the big difference. With a VCR, cassette recorder or printing press I can make a few copies at a time. It is labor and time intensive and the copy that I make is often not as high in quality as the original (with some exceptions) With MP3s and online video I can copy it in seconds and I can share it with millions. Before it would take me an hour to make a copy of a tape I bought for a friend of mine, for which he will have had to purchase a blank tape and chances are it won't sound as good as the original. With MP3s in that same hour I can download the full album in near CD quality and using my bit torrent client I can instantly share it with hundreds if not thousands of people. For example I just bought my niece Taylor Swift's new CD for Christmas. If I go to ISO Hunt and search for it I see there are nearly 1200 people seeding that album. Who knows how many thousands downloaded it and are not seeding it and at this moment there are 61 leechers. That means if I downloaded it and shared it I would be instantly sharing it with 61 people. Back with the cassette tape it would take me 61+ hours to make 61 copies for someone. The VCR would take me at least that long to share a TV show I had recorded or a movie I had with 61 other people. In both cases I would have had to purchase blank tapes. Here it takes minutes and it is spread all over the place. So explain to me how downloading a full CD and sharing it will 100's, if not 1000's or more is Timeshifting? |
Quote:
His M.O. is that he likes to post this shit on the forums to stir up shit with content producers who are being endlessly ripped off. Claiming the use of pirate technologies are 'his right' to use, and further claiming the VAST MAJORITY of people using tubes, torrents, among other things is their cheap ass way of backing up their programs they supposedly PAID FOR. Gideon claims he is a programmer. I am sure if he made a tube script, CMS or something of use to the adult industry.. if his programs, were being stolen, shared, hacked, oops... time shifted, and were given away on GFY for free. He would be pissing himself, and spitting fire. I am sure, and doubt highly, when people told him to stop charging so much for his work, and make it ad driven, or some of his other countless drivel. He would not be too happy. Or furthermore, when ONE person claims they paid for their script, and are sharing it with others as their RIGHT, and using GFY as their back up program, it would not be kosher. Save yourself the grief arguing with him. |
Quote:
My prediction is that he will say that Timshifting gives him the right to record (download) the material and fair use allows him to share it. Or something like that. |
Quote:
Quote:
some smaller communities could not get access to the signal because the necessary equipment was not made available locally (very expensive recievers and rebroadcasters). The cable companies trunked the signal from the metropolitan areas and expanded it to local affilate stations. They charged people for the transmission and the tv stations argued that they should be the only ones who should be allowed to make money from the signal Until the government stepped in and said it was a good thing. They pointed out that air waves that the tv stations were broadcasting on were given to those broadcaster by the government. And this private industry extending the reach without massive government subsidization. They legalized it and established the regulation you are talking about. After this happened television stations made way more money, it increase competition (more stations) and each station could broadcast more hours of television. Their revenue went up. Quote:
The fact is we have always had the right to timeshift our content, we just didn't have the technology to do it. Quote:
if the power went out at my house and i failed to tape my episode of "knight rider" Under the tape cassette model i would have to
under the torrent model i would
the fact that it is easier doesn't change the fact that i am performing the same act of timeshifting. I bought the right to watch that content at 8PM on monday night, and i am timeshifting the right to view to whenever i want to view it (ie 6 pm tuesday). I paid for the content therefore i have a right to watch it when i want. Quote:
However it is irrelevant because we are talking about the fair use use of torrents not the illegal use of torrents. the equivalent is borrowing of a tape from a friend to catch the show you missed. A single tape could be passed on to dozens of friends watched at different times before it ever get returned for reuse to tape the next episode. When i download a tv show i want to watch from the torrents, i don't keep it forever, i watch it i delete it so i have space on my harddrive for next weeks episode. Since i only seed to 100% (give only what i get) it the technological equivalent to passing on the tape to the next person. Your arguing that the total size of the swarm somehow makes it illegal, if anything it makes it more legal. I am never giving anyone a working copy of the file, if you played my pieces it would come up with the error saying the file does not work. The person giving you a complete working copy of the show on a tape cassette is giving you 1 working copy. That tape trading act so that is legal, because i bought the right to view the content when i paid the cable bill. The act of downloading the show from the torrents is equally legal for the same reason. Quote:
Now if you want to talk music, there is more of a issue to discuss because there are many countries that have a piracy tax on recordable media. When the record associate negotated the rate (offer) with the government of canada (acceptance) and they took the fee (consideration) you have all the conditions of a valid contract (licience). As a canadian citizen who paid a piracy tax, i paid for every song i choose to download. Which means for me ever download is timeshifting(assuming i listen and get rid of it ) or recovery (if i keep it forever). That licienced right does not go away, just because i am vacationing in florida (geo targetted blocking). The fact that i connect to 10,000 peers to fulfill that right, does not invalidate the right. Especially if the technology prevents me from giving any of those 10,000 people a fully working copy of the file. |
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
one more way to look at it
VTR were produced by sony for years for tv stations they cost $10,000 each, the tapes cost $25 a pop and could record without degrading maybe a maximum of 10 times. the betamax VTR (VCR) was a cheap ($999) consumer version of the product, which provided the technology to finally fullfill the fair use right of "Timeshifting" viewing rights. when it was moved from a commercial enviroment to the non commercial enviroment, a new use came about one unrelated to the distribution use it was originally planned for. large scale duplication systems (DVD presses) are being technlogically provided for via the torrents. but their use in a non commercial enviroment results in a new fair use (access shifting). I predict that when this gets to the supreme court the fact that bit torrent users never give a full working copy of the file will finally allow the fair use right of access shifting to be realized. The right to take content you paid for (bought a cd, or paid a piracy tax) and shift it to any device you want to enjoy it on (thru the swarm) will become a protected fair use. And when that happens there will be lot of money to be made taking advantage of the technlogy. Those that prepare for that day, figure out how to make money using the technology now will see a massive explosion in their income. Those that try and fight it will end up following all those leaders and earning a lot less. |
Quote:
Quote:
Hey, I paid for it once right nig? So that's my right... Prepare yourself toots. |
Quote:
|
Quote:
Of course i fully provide for your recovery rights, i let you come back to me to get the copy as many times as you want. I don't say to sorry you have to pay me for another months charge to get the same content again. AS i have repeatedly pointed out if you fully provided for the fair use rights of your purchasers then you have a right to block all other distributions of your content. If you don't those other distributions can hide behind the fair use rights. |
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
just like in the DeCSS case. IF i did what you guys did and not provide for the fair use rights, the torrent sites could hide behind fair use/ and it protector the safe harbor provision of the DMCA. |
Quote:
Say, however, someone lives in the US. They log into their favorite torrent site and download the new Metallica album. They didn't buy the album. They have never owned the album so this download is not a back up. There is no piracy tax in the US so there is no way for them to say that they have paid for it. They now are in possession of the new Metallica album without having ever paid for it. They then keep that album open on their torrent client and anyone can download it. So they end up sharing it with a bunch of different people. This is not timeshifting. They did not own it. They did not pay for it in any way so they have no rights to it. It is not fair use because they are not incorporating this material into something of their own (IE making a video with it or using it as background music in a project or doing some type of work that involves the music) they simply downloaded something they didn't pay for and are now redistributing it all over the globe. This is piracy is it not? |
Quote:
Making a copy that of something i already bought does not do that. HUGE DIFFERENCE that the point i should not be force to buy another copy as long as i don't cross that line of preventing the sale from someone who has never bought it. and before you say but by participating in the swarm i allow someone to get it without paying for it. I fully believe THAT PERSON is commiting a crime, but that crime is committed at the instance when he puts together all the non working copies into a single working copy. Not one second before. If you want to go after that person go ahead(if you can figuire out who that person is on a public tracker). If you want to deny that person access to your private tracker, go ahead. If you provide me access to the private tracker when i buy your content so my fair use rights are protected, prevent every public tracker from listing your files. That 100% ok too. |
Quote:
|
Quote:
yes that would be piracy. (the downloading part) Go after that person, of course you would have to do it without violating the privacy rights of all the people i mentioned (piracy tax, bought the album, etc). the sharing after they finished downloading would not be, because they still are not giving anyone a working copy of the mp3. |
Quote:
You're not making a copy you are getting it from a torrent. In which you may or MAY NOT actually have bought a copy. If you buy a CD you have a PHYSICAL copy. You have recipt. You have proof you actually purchased said product. Maybe YOU just get copies of stuff you already own off torrent, but if you are trying to suggest the OVERWHELMINGLY VAST MAJORITY of torrents user aren't plain old cheap ass thieves then you are fucked in the head. I'm so tired of torrents users justifying hat they od by suggesthing that somehow they A) Are only getting copy of something they bought. Well make the copy form the media you bought them why use a torrent? B) Use torents to only download Linux distros. How many fucking copies of Linux do you fucking need? At any rate if you are seeding a torrent then aren't you basically giving access to your computer to any old asshole out there? REAL fucking smart. Like some nerd can't hack utorrent program or something and make it where they can infiltrate your system and take more than just a copy of Knight Rider. Seeding a torrent is about as smart as letting your girlfriend fuck dozens of random guys without condoms then you fuck her bareback afterwards. |
The RIAA must have finally been convinced by gideongallery's timeshifting and fair use arguments.
|
Quote:
50% +1 is a majority a very small majority but it is still a majority. given the fact that 50% of all torrent traffic is for tv shows (which 99.5% of the population bought a right too) and there are multiple countries have piracy taxes which legitimize other torrent downloads (music and movies ) The number of people using torrents non infringing purpose is a majority. because quite simply 50% + x (authorized by piracy tax) is greater than 50% which is a majority. Quote:
Quote:
but the fact that it is 50% +x (piracy tax) +y (open source/open licienced) still makes it a majority. Quote:
Never miss my favorite shows, acts like a vcr and since the entire thing runs on linux it runs blistering fast on pentium 4 chip. |
Quote:
to replace a broken record :winkwink::winkwink: |
Arguing with gideon is like wrestling with a pig.
You get muddy, and the pig enjoys it. Don't bother. As for the RIAA, they just decided that the individual lawsuits weren't having the deterrent effect they'd hoped for, so now they're going to work with ISP's to send warning letters and if necessary shut off internet access for people who won't stop after receiving a warning. This seems to be a much better strategy IMO, and they have willing partners because ISP's aren't happy about the amount of bandwidth used and network congestion caused by torrent and other p2p traffic. |
Quote:
Quote:
How did this 99.5% buy a right to these shows? Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
|
|
Quote:
http://analytics.mikesukmanowsky.com.../12/cookie.gif |
From the arm chair I reserve the right to quarterback from I have to say that while I may not agree with Gideon in some respects I certainly can see he is actually coming from a very informed place on the issues and probably has some sort of law degree... if not a practicing, licensed attorney, and I say that because despite every insulting invective hurled at him he still comes back to rationally and with supporting facts make his argument in a gentlemanly fashion. (Excuse me if that is common knowledge - I am not on GFY enough to know everyone's biography.) I suggest instead of getting heated up and turning this into a useless fight people try harder to debate the points like business people and draw their own conclusions and adjust business accordingly.
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
http://thepiratebay.org/top/all this is the top 100 downloaded torrents on the pirate bay (which is the largest torrent site out there) According to them the top 10 most downloaded things are 8 movies and 2 pc games. There are only about 12 TV shows in the top 100. Nearly the entire rest of the list is movies. Included in the top 20 are at least 4 movies that are still just in theaters and not on DVD yet. Maybe things are different in other countries, but when you buy a movie ticket here it entitles you to go in and watch the movie, it doesn't mean you get to then go home and download it. What I am getting at is that I think movies and music make up a much larger number of downloads than do TV shows. Maybe you can show me something that proves otherwise. |
| All times are GMT -7. The time now is 01:48 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
©2000-, AI Media Network Inc123