My child, listen not to him. Strive to your temper your actions with good judgement and humility. Let love enter your heart and not hate others, for they are all your brothers. Obey my commandments and steal no more, and become a paragon of good manners and virtue.

Oh screw it, it is a lost cause.

The Lord

BTW, I was successful at getting a number of auctions pulled from eBay. The ones selling MP3s are toast.
>

I work with recording and sequencing software a lot, so whenever I find warez CDs for sale (with their quasi-legal suggestions of "software compilation"), I always get them yanked.

"Yes, YES!!! I love the arguments! Whatever you do, keep posting. Don't stop just because the discussion is pointless, or doesn't belong here. Fill your mind with vengeance, fill your heart with hate, and fill your empeg with illegal mp3s!!!!!
"

From one troll to another...

Satan is more sensible, however

true, they are related in that they are all components of intellectual property law. but, there are huge differences in the scope of protection they offer, and for whom.

one key difference that is pertinent to this discussion is that copyright law includes a concept of "fair use". now, that concept has been distorted and limited by other legislation, but it is there. no such provision exists for patent law. if you violate a patent, knowingly or not, for commercial gain or not, you are liable for damages.

--dan.

Here in Croatia whoever plays music publicly (e.g. in a bar, be it from CDs or radio) has to pay royalty. Failing to do so is misdemeanor and subject to fine. There are organizations (some are private companies) which collect that royalties, but I have no idea how do they distribute them.

A friend of mine, a misdemeanor judge, told me about a bar owner's successfull defence: he was playing only free stuff downloaded from mp3.com.


A word about patents: you don't have to 'figure out' how to duplicate a patented technology. One of key ideas behing patents is that the holder has to disclose protected technology sufficiently to enable an average practitioner in the field to duplicate it.

Speaking of free Croatian mp3s, a friend of mine in Croatia is involved with http://www.blacksoulmusic.com. Nice house-y stuff

Argh, they are pet project of my favourite radio station, but that doesn't make them *my* favourite music

Edit: Sorry, missread the URL. The comment refered to Blackout Project, not Blacksoul Music

My child, listen not to him.

Why do you always have to butt in on everything I do? I'm just trying to have a little fun, and here you come with your 'commandments' crap again! Man, such a pain in my ass. Everyone knows that it is way more fun to be on the Dark Lord's side. I mean, just look at this. Now doesn't that look like a good time?

Beelzebub

OhMiGoodness! I never knew the COS (no, not the Church of Scientology :> ) was "In association with Amazon.com"...

Bahaaahahahahahahahaa.

I do have this to say about LaVey, he could play a mean pipe-organ.

Yeah, but that 'Prince of Darkness' - don't you missuse a deserved alias proudly used by Lucas, manucacturer of electric equipment used in British cars?

Yeah, but that 'Prince of Darkness' - don't you missuse a deserved alias proudly used by Lucas, manucacturer of electric equipment used in British cars?

Hey I copyrighted that 'Prince of Darkness' thing well over two millennia ago! So don't get me started on how many times I've had to 'enforce' my own copy protection. Besides, who's gonna stop me?

His Infernal Majesty

Man, gotta love that logo. Looks like a 50's scifi film. ``No one will be admitted during the terrifying black mass scene!''

ROFL, good one, Bitt.

How dare you use My Name for your own amusement!! I know who you are, and I will not let you get away with it! Careful or you will spend an eternity in Damnation!!!

I'm watching you.

By the way, you owe me a royalty check for that 'His Infernal Majesty' usage.

The Lord of the Flies

Is it getting hot in here or is it just me?

I'm watching you

Sorry man, don't get your little red panties all in a wad. I promise it wont happen again. I was just having a little fun, sheesh!

//matt

No action may be brought under this title alleging infringement of copyright based on the manufacture, importation, or distribution of a digital audio recording device, a digital audio recording medium, an analog recording device, or an analog recording medium, or based on the noncommercial use by a consumer of such a device or medium for making digital musical recordings or analog musical recordings.

So what about other laws describing copyright infringement?

Calvin

Uh oh, now you've got me. I don't know what that phrase means in English.

``Title'' refers to the section of the US Code within which it's contained. Copyright is contained in Title 17.

Right, it's a clause of limitation that says you can't be prosecuted for the infraction under *this* title. That's kind of sneaky legalese that implies a loophole somewhere else that they can use to fry you.

Calvin "am i paranoid?"

"it was simply a bad analogy." - tfabris

Any particular reason?


Hybrid,

Would you be kind enough to point those holes out for me? Preciate it.


See, the name 'piracy' makes it sound like you're stealing something, when in actuality, you bought and paid for it and the music companies just want to control how you use it. It's none of their business what you do with it or how you use it or if you reproduce it. While they're selling the music contained on that cd, they're also selling you the knowledge it took to create that music. I'll give it to them that you shouldn't be able to sell that reproduced music (which is still arguable), but when they start controlling everything else you can do with it, they cross the line. What's next, no reproducing the music on instruments? No reproducing the music via vocal cords? That'll be the day- when a cop pulls you over for singing along to the radio.

Since copyright law is contained in title 17, there are no other titles that prohibit you from copying someone elses work. If you stole the CD from the artist, then they could sue, but that's it..

NWMT.

Bruno

Not Wearing Man-Thong?

Neato Watch, Man, Totally!?

No Weirdos May Touch?

Now Waxing My Tooshie?

Never Wear Maladjusted Tubetops?

Nasty Warts, More Ticks?

Well what is it?

Well which one is it?

NorthWesternMost Territories, he's from Canada...

Actually I think it was "not worth my time."

I am having trouble understanding this concept - I know of nobody..yes NOBODY.. who downloads mp3's for any reason other than to get a quick sample of a new artist/album as a preview before buying. I do this occasionally when someone recommends an album I don't know; I have a quick listen and if more than half the songs are good I get the album from a shop (or amazon.) If one is good, I try and find it on single. After that I ditch the mp3 file and rip my own from CD, single, LP or sometimes tape.
That's what my friends and colleagues do. I thought it was pretty standard.

Am I just being too middle class about this??

See, the name 'piracy' makes it sound like you're stealing something, when in actuality, you bought and paid for it

Agreed. Moreover, the terms "piracy" and "copyright theft" make it sound like the original owner doesn't possess it any more. That's the reason why real theft is immoral, of course: not because the theif gains the item, but because the owner loses it. Such loss is simply not present in copyright violation cases; whether or not copyright violation is immoral, it can't sensibly be described as "theft".

Peter

Correct, though it can be percieved as a potential theft. The only other way to get the said item is to buy a license from the owner. If you copy someone else's licensed version, then you're bypassing that requirement. So in effect, but not in action, you are taking something that you don't own.

If someone sells a patented/copyrighted product without an agreement with the patent/copyright holder, the patent holder is "losing" market share. I would call this a form of theft.

Ok well say you don't reproduce the song. You cut out 2 seconds of it. You could argue that that's an entirely different song. The point is that they can't own knowledge or control what you can do with that knowledge. Once I see how 'ginger' works, I have my own knowledge of it. They can't take that away. Sure it's reasonable to regulate the selling of the patented or copyrighted product, but to regulate how you use it is just wrong. Like I said, if they can say that reproducing a song on you computer is illegal, then they could say singing it or playing the song on an instrument is illegal, too. They are all just reproductions of the song.