http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A6241-2003Jun17.html
Reckon he’s in the RIAA’s pocket? Or perhaps they are in his?
Not only does is show he’s in the RIAA pocket, but that he doesn’t understand at all how computer’s even work. What an embarassment.
According to opensecrets.org, the 2 top recipients of money from the recorded music industry are 2 democrats from California, Berman and Boxer. In the top 20 recipients, only 2 are republicans. The RIAA doesn’t have to give money to Hatch or any other republicans, because the rethugs are naturally evil and hate the thought of anybody getting anything for free (except them of course).
So because he’s against people stealing he’s in someone’s pocket?
All this shows is that Hatch has an apalling lack of technical knowledge.
[slight hijack]
Oops, you used the word “stealing”. Expect a dozen replles or so from people who tell you that it isn’t stealing because nobody is losing any money. Also expect all kinds of interesting justifications for file theft.
All of which aren’t valid, IMO. Some folks just expect music to be free because they are used to obtaining it illegally.
Downloading music is not stealing, it is not even illegal. Copyright law only comes into play when you try to sell copies of writing or music. Downloading music comes under fair use, in my opinion, althought the courts have ruled otherwise.
Incorrect. Copyright law comes into play whenever you make a copy. It’s called copyright, not sellright.
It’s only fair use if you legally own a copy already. There are a few gray areas, but it is very obvious that file sharing is not fair use.
I forgot to address this. As far as I can determine from US copyright law, you are correct. Downloading copyrighted files is not illegal. Uploading copyrighted files, however, is illegal.
Oh, and IANAL.
Silly senators who know didley squat about computers should not be giving ideas to those of us …er them that do.
Yeah, fuck trials and all that time-wasting law bullshit. As long as they give enough money to politicians, the RIAA gets to be vigalantes.
Hatch and the RIAA probably DO get along quite swimmingly.
Um… no. They are asking for the laws that will permit them to act. If those laws are passed, then they are acting legally. And, therefore, not vigilantes.
Right?
Ain’t that a form of terrorism?
They would be punishing people who are presumed to be guilty of theft by means of destruction of property. There would be no trial, no presumption of innocence, no defense, etc, etc.
Could this be made legal by means of a statute? I don’t know, but I do seem to recall that some of the things above are mentioned in your constitution.
No.
Is it a copyright violation if I copy a CD onto a cassette to play in my car?
How about if I give the tape to a friend.
Copyrights are intended to stop people from selling copyrighted material.
Computer sabotage is terrorism.
Fight the fascists!
Nope. Don’t you hate when people quote a dictionary? Me too.
From www.m-w.com:
“vigilante: a member of a volunteer committee organized to suppress and punish crime summarily (as when the processes of law appear inadequate);
broadly : a self-appointed doer of justice”
Although the definition includes those who are not working within the law, it is not exclusive to them. (“as when the processes of law…”)
Regardless of whether or not they are operating within the law, I don’t trust the RIAA’s technical skills enough to give them the power to be judge and jury. When they go a month without their website being hacked, then we’ll talk.
Terrorism is a violent act perpetrated on innocents and/or non-combatants for the purposes of spreading fear and terror to mandate a political action beneficial to the terrorists cause.
Since this would be a policy instituted by the politicians, this is technically state sponsored oppression.
Yeah, and pot is illegal, and we see how well that works.
The War on File-Sharing is going to be harder, more intrusive, and less popular than the War on Drugs
Let’s face it, people have been getting music free since the 1920’s via the radio. And that is still the predominate way most people get their music. Those are also the songs they download, too, the radio songs, the songs they here over and over again a hundred times a day. The songs that infect their heads like some melodious virus, attacking brain cells with half-remembered lyrics and riffs which can only be treated by hearing the damn thing one more time.
The mistake is assuming every person File-Sharing is a Hard-Core, CD-Copying, Anything-for-Free Bastard. This is like assuming everyone who smokes pot is a junkie on the street robbing teenages for the next fix. The vast majority of File-Sharing folks, like the majority of pot smokers, are casual users at most. They hear a song on the radio, for free, 16 times in one day, and like it. So they download it. Now they have just broken the law, but to them its not a big deal. The difference between it being forced down their throats by the radio playlist and listening to at their leisure is nebulous and artificial. Kinda like the distinction between pot and alcohol. And, like pot smokers, they have a whole arsenal of logic and justifications as to why what their doing is not only not wrong, but actually good.
That’s the challenge. Maybe the record companies will have better luck with file-sharers than the government has had with pot smokers…
No.
**
**
Yes.
No. Although, there is that function, it is also illegal to give away other people’s property. Which is what file sharing does.
From here.
File sharing is NOT fair use. And it IS copyright violation. And it IS stealing.
Putting your fingers in your ears and chanting “Lalalalala” does not change that fact. Neither does your feelings towards the RIAA.
That said, destroying people’s computers is vigilantism and shouldn’t be allowed.