BeesTea
Network Janitor
Premium,VIP
join:2003-03-08
00000
| said by tweb  :Actually, those analogies to "how many car thieves bought a car" and "how many counterfeiters actually earned a dollar" are fundamentally flawed. Car thieves are actually taking something physical from someone. The counterfeiter analogy has several other issues, but what it comes down to is this: Fundamentally flawed? I'm sorry, but you don't seem to understand the fundamental point copyright. The car thief example is analogous as it's also illegal. The counterfeiting analogy is infact spot on. The issue being that the pirated copy of a dollar has a more tangible value. Aside from that, it is identical. The US Government essentially holds the copyright to the various bills and coins we use. Just because an mp3 isn't as tradable as a dollar for goods, it is no less of a copying without rights problem.
said by tweb :people are being sued for THEORETICAL loss of revenue (and exorbitantly so). If someone downloads the movie and goes to the theater to see it, very little (if any) revenue is lost. Of course, there's always the flip-side, wherein someone watches a bootleg copy and decides not to go see it after that. People are having exorbitant damages raised against them. They are being sued for VIOLATION OF COPYRIGHT though, the fees and damages that come with that are not a cause, they are an effect.
Those damages are not completely based in theory either. While I know that Urbana, the metropolis it is, doesn't have a large piracy problem, larger cities do. Places like Chicago, New York, Los Angeles, and any place even close to their size, all have people selling those movies, albums, and software on the street. $10 for movies, $5 for albums, and anywhere from $5 to $40 for software are not uncommon prices at all. When someone grabs a movie from a p2p network, then sells it on the street, those dollars start adding up fast.
said by tweb : But, be it good or bad, p2p is here, and will be for a long time, so the middle-men need to try a new business model (which doesn't include supplementing income via mass-lawsuits) It is here to stay, and it does have very legitimate uses. Those uses are not it's primary use today though. If you want to see the end of p2p persecution and it's users legal troubles, you have two choices. Elect new politicians to change our current copyright laws, or convince the p2p user-base to stop abusing the p2p networks. Either way, at some point you'll need to come to grips with the fact that it's currently illegal.
said by tweb :(I don't really see it as a moral issue). Not many people do. Most likely because it's primarily an ethical issue.
said by tweb :. And I, also, can't quite understand how such a troll-ish comment could spawn this thread  Because like you, many people live in some fantasy land about what's they've decided is right and wrong and for some reason insist on defending something that, until the law is changed, is illegal.
--
$ /bin/whoami
nobody |
|
tweb2
join:2005-05-24
Urbana, IL
| reply to BeesTea
I in fact DO understand the fundamental point of copyright. It is to ensure that the artist has the ability to reap the rewards of their work; as such, the question whether or not they are losing their ability to reap the rewards (i.e. $$) should be considered.
The counterfeiting analogy is not "spot on." In fact, because an mp3 is not tradable as a dollar for goods is a prime example of why it's not. Money only has value if someone is willing to accept it in exchange for goods or services. Spending counterfeit currency is tantamount to theft (in the literal and legal senses of the word), whereas downloading an mp3 (based on case law president) is not theft.
The issue I am addressing is the act of downloading, not the burning and sale on the street. Stemming the tide of random kids downloading movies won't stop the street vendor from getting a copy.
As for legitimate p2p uses, I agree that none of those constitute the primary use. That's quite a false dilemma you raise with your "two choices," though. There are multitudes of other ways things can change. Offer legal downloads with embedded adds, DRM (meh), or even adding some sort of tax on internet service or blank DVD’s that kicks back to the industry, for example. Saying there are only two solutions is pretty uninformed and arrogant. I agree that changing copyright law is the "best" answer to the problem, but probably one of the least likely to occur in the near future.
Just out of curiosity, how do you separate moral and ethical? Unless you are talking about corporate/employee "ethics" (or along a similar vein), which hardly stand as definitions of ethics, moral and ethical are synonymous.
When did I defend downloading movies (etc..)? I’m against it, illegality aside, mostly because it seems like a waste of effort. Renting movies is cheap, money goes (in a roundabout way) to the artist(s), and unless you’re downloading full-res DVD images/VOBs, the quality certainly suffers. What I take more issue with is the way in which restitution is being sought.
On an off-topic note, do you just insult others because you can? Or, are you so wrapped up in your own “fantasy land” that logic doesn't’t apply to you? And please, if you want to put someone down based on semantics, try to do a better job in the future (and check your grammar more closely, too). As a matter of philosophy, everyone lives in a world where they decide what's right and what's wrong. Society and laws say what is right and wrong in a legal sense, but even those guidelines are open to interpretation by judges. The words "right" and "wrong" are vague, ambiguous, and undoubtedly influenced by personal interpretation. |
|
BeesTea
Network Janitor
Premium,VIP
join:2003-03-08
00000
| said by tweb2 :I in fact DO understand the fundamental point of copyright. Clearly you don't. You keep relating it to value. It has nothing to do with the value of what's being copied.
There's not much point in debating the point if you don't understand it's purpose.
--
$ /bin/whoami
nobody |
|
cwm1276
join:2004-01-16
Stillman Valley, IL
| reply to DevilOnE
Tweb,
people are being sued for THEORETICAL loss of revenue (and exorbitantly so). If someone downloads the movie and goes to the theater to see it, very little (if any) revenue is lost. Of course, there's always the flip-side, wherein someone watches a bootleg copy and decides not to go see it after that.
Here is the problem. IF one went to the Theater and bought the DVD at a store the studio's get $$ twice. When you are downloading it because you already saw it get are only getting $$ once. Even if it is just a few pennies they are not making it does add up. So the studios go after Insight to find out who is sharing these for download. To scare people from downloading them they have large fines. The fine has no connection to the movie, other than that the movie was downloaded. |
|
DevilOnE
Fozzie the buttplug, Vu the shitkicker
Premium
join:2003-12-12
Evansville, IN | reply to DevilOnE
there is no real point in arguing if its stealing or not. we all cant download since they are blocking it. |
|
DevilOnE
Fozzie the buttplug, Vu the shitkicker
Premium
join:2003-12-12
Evansville, IN | reply to DevilOnE
i am getting it to work right now. Im downloading SW: episode III using Burst! torrent.Its not going fast but its working. |
|
DevilOnE
Fozzie the buttplug, Vu the shitkicker
Premium
join:2003-12-12
Evansville, IN | reply to DevilOnE
well after 12hrs i only have 130mb downloaded. Why is it so slow? at this rate its going it will be sometime next week before its done. |
|
dinzy
join:2004-11-09
Urbana, IL
| reply to DevilOnE
Try firewalling your BT client. For some reason Azureus messes up my NIC and causes torrents to go yellow.(probably due to how it has many simultaneous torrents going due to low upload speed) Sometimes I get better download speeds when they are yellow. So basically make yourself unconnectable and see if it helps or not. |
|
DevilOnE
Fozzie the buttplug, Vu the shitkicker
Premium
join:2003-12-12
Evansville, IN | reply to DevilOnE
what do you mean by firewalling the BT Client? i using the XP built-in firewall |
|
DevilOnE
Fozzie the buttplug, Vu the shitkicker
Premium
join:2003-12-12
Evansville, IN | reply to DevilOnE
i gave and quit the download. it takes too long |
|
TheOnlyOne
join:2003-04-18 | reply to DevilOnE
The BT problem must only be in certain areas, as i've never had any problem with BT. I've found that using Azureus i get better speeds then using any other client.
»azureus.sourceforge.net/ |
|
qos1
join:2003-09-19
Beverly Hills, CA
| reply to dinzy
said by dinzy :Try firewalling your BT client. For some reason Azureus messes up my NIC and causes torrents to go yellow.(probably due to how it has many simultaneous torrents going due to low upload speed) Sometimes I get better download speeds when they are yellow. So basically make yourself unconnectable and see if it helps or not. Bad Bad Advice...For one Azureus doesn't "make" your torrent's go yellow, yellow status could be for a couple reason's
1)You are unconnectable
2)You are not seeing connections to both peers and seeds
I don't think there is enough info here to make a decision as to why he is having trouble...
How many seeds/peers where on that torrent?
Is your client setup properly with port forwarding from your border device or software firewall? |
|
DevilOnE
Fozzie the buttplug, Vu the shitkicker
Premium
join:2003-12-12
Evansville, IN | reply to DevilOnE
well i tried BitTornado and have better luck with it. I also opened my ports. |
|
DevilOnE
Fozzie the buttplug, Vu the shitkicker
Premium
join:2003-12-12
Evansville, IN | reply to DevilOnE
im gettin 25kB/s using BitTornado. is that a good speed or should i be faster? |
|
TheOnlyOne
join:2003-04-18
| said by DevilOnE :im gettin 25kB/s using BitTornado. is that a good speed or should i be faster? That depends, how many seeds and peers are there? Also what do you have your upload set at? |
|
DevilOnE
Fozzie the buttplug, Vu the shitkicker
Premium
join:2003-12-12
Evansville, IN | reply to DevilOnE
i messed with firewall settings and started a download at 11:30pm. When i got up at 7am it was already done. the movie file was 1.43gigs. |
|
bencjedi
join:2002-02-18
Winchester, KY | episode 3 eh? |
|
indy0365
join:2001-08-25
Franklin, IN | makes you wonder why not just go see it , so if I was a Mpaa ? hound looking for someone to sue I just choose him ?
nothing like self incriminating evidence and I m sure insight would have no problem with customer info |
|
