[Dreddnik]

Since there is no way for us to defend our position on your site ...

http://www.stealingisillegal.com/links.php

( no comments section ),

I hoped to bring this to your 'Civilized debate' forum.


This is the response authored by our Site Admin .. unedited ( it's clean and civil )
The items in Red are quote from your site ..

Finally! A very well thought out and intelligently written site about the view that opposes ours. However, what I find to be ironically amusing -- is that he lists Boycott RIAA as a site that he strongly disagrees with ( http://www.stealingisillegal.com/links.php ), obviously being unaware that the only thing on here we'd disagree with is what he has left UNSAID. This site, like any others, spins the truth. However, it is the most level headed, no-BS spin I've ever seen. I really do have to give this guy props for not being unintelligent about his views.

So, I'm going to critique these views, one at a time.

FAQ'S AND ARGUMENTS:

"Is it OK to download MP3s?
It depends on where you're getting them and, most importantly, if you have the artist's authorization to download it. Generally speaking, no. If you're downloading MP3s from Kazaa, LimeWire, or other Peer-to-Peer networks, you're breaking the law. Sure, there are probably a handful of songs on those services that are actually legal (that is, the artist has granted the rights for that song to be freely distributed). But, I'd bet that 99% of those songs are completely illegal. Don't do it."

He might be surprised to find that we agree with him 100% on this. Not from any moral standpoint -- but because the RIAA will victimize you harshly. The punishment does not fit the crime when it comes to their lack of mercy. We have forever warned people to stay clear of P2P. One thing that he does not seem to take into account however -- which is the case with the VAST MAJORITY of the RIAA Lawsuits -- is the end user didn't even know they were doing anything wrong. They say "ignorance is no excuse for breaking the law" and I think that statement is an excuse, in and of itself.

It's an excuse that gives intolerant administrations the full legal rights to make an example of you, to ruin your life, to ruin the lives of your family and friends -- all for the sake of detouring the people who ARE knowingly breaking the law.

He does encourage legal downloading ( http://www.stealingisillegal.com/alternatives.php ) and he really should add dmusic.com to his list ( which by the way -- hosts and supports Boycott RIAA -- and is even older than mp3.com ).

"Is it OK to use P2P networks?
Not necessarily. There are certainly legal ways to use a peer-to-peer network... but that's not what you're doing, now is it? If you're downloading copyrighted music from a peer-to-peer network (like Kazaa, Morpheus, Bearshare, Gnutella, or the like), you're breaking the law. You can, and should, be fined and/or sent to prison. Even if you're only looking for legal resources on such a network, it's far too easy to "accidentally" download something copyrighted. Don't risk it."

Again, Boycott RIAA fully agrees here. Also again -- he does not take into account that most people are not (or at least weren't until the RIAA circus came to town) literate to all of this and walked into this type of mess unknowingly.

"Is it OK to copy a CD?
Yes, but only if you bought the CD and the copy is for your own personal use. If you purchase a CD, then for as long as you own that CD, you are allowed to make and maintain copies of that CD on other media, including CD-Rs, minidiscs, cassette tapes, and even MP3 players. You may NOT, however, use any of those for commercial purposes (including selling them) or give any of them to a friend. That means that you CAN NOT make a copy of a CD for a friend, or likewise copy a friend's CD for your own use, even if it's not for a profit. (Note: The Digital Millennium Copyright Act [PDF] grants the copyright owner the right to use copy-protection technology.)"

His "NOTE" makes the REAL point! If you pay for something, you SHOULD have the right to be able to make backup copies in case the original is lost, damaged or inadvertently destroyed. HOWEVER -- being greedy, the RIAA would rather see you spend $15 after $15 after $15 for the exact same album -- and then tell you "oh well you should have taken better care of it". CDs can get damaged in a number of ways that even a paranoid careful neat freak couldn't possibly have control of.

"Is it OK to make a compilation CD?
Yes, but only if you already legally own the music you compile onto your new CD. For example, if you own 15 CDs from various artists, but like only one song from each CD, you're allowed to make your own "compilation" CD of those 15 songs. However, this only applies to music you already legally own. You are NOT allowed to borrow your friend's CD in order to make your compilation CD. Also, you are not allowed to make a copy of your compilation CD for a friend."

Refer to that previously mentioned "NOTE" again.

"Is it OK to download a movie?
It is not legal to download a copyrighted (and therefore any major) movie from the Internet, even if you only keep it on your computer for an hour. It doesn't matter; it's still illegal. If you want to watch a movie, you have to go out and buy a ticket, rent it, or buy it on video or DVD. That's it. You can't just go downloading it, even if it isn't available in any of those legal ways. The only exception to the "no online movie" rule are sites like MovieLink, where you can virtually rent movies online. "

Netflix is another great way to rent online as well. What people need to understand is that laws are supposedly to protect the people -- but they are usually made to screw the poor. I can VHS or Tivo Record off of MTV or HBO and keep it for my personal use. In fact -- I have tons of tapes from the 1980's that I've kept -- and its also really neat to watch all of the old commercials and notice just how much the times have changed (including how commercial breaks used to be 2 to 4 commercials and now they are 6, 8, 10 and 12 commercials -- even on Cable or Satellite so now you get to PAY for watching commercials!). To watch commercials about the "New Apple ]['s" and the "New Commodore 64" and the "New 486DX100" or the "New for 1985 - Some Make and Model Car Here" is a really interesting flashback to a simpler time.

I can record off of the radio without violating any laws, either. So how is the Internet different than the radio or TV? Really, it's not. People simply fear change -- especially when it comes to new technology. I remember when the MPAA was trying to ban VHS Recording in the 80's and the RIAA trying to ban tape recording at the same time. They failed then and they're going to fail now. All the open availability of movies and music does is encourage people to buy CDs, DVDs and attend concerts and goto the theaters.

This doesn't mean you should break the law. But it does mean the laws need to be reformed -- and not the type of reform the RIAA and MPAA have in mind!

"Is it OK to copy a song that is no longer available?
No. The same rules always apply, even if they no longer make the CD. Can't find it new? Look for it used. Look on eBay. Look at yard sales. Still can't find it? Too bad. It's still illegal to make a copy of it for someone else."

Yep, the same rules apply. Screw the consumer. As long as your getting rich, who cares? Well, I'm thinking the consumers care. Yeah, look for a rare CD on eBay where some jerk can sell it for 25 times what it's actually worth and exploit the fact that someone wants it. Look at yard sales, where you likely won't find exactly what your looking for. Still can't find it? He's right. TOO BAD. It's still illegal to make a copy. The RIAA doesn't care about music or musicians -- they care about profit. Nothing more, nothing less. It is the RIAA's lack of morality we are fighting here on Boycott RIAA. We're not encouraging piracy. In fact -- whether your busted or not -- all piracy does is make the RIAA's and MPAA's cases for them and encourages the sales of their copyright. They're getting free advertisement at your expense.

"Is it OK to use a game emulator?
No. Copyrights apply not only to music, but also software (games) and hardware designs (including Nintendo/Sega consoles). As the The Entertainment Software Association explains: "If the sole purpose of an emulator is to allow the playing of a console game on a PC, and the owner of the copyrights in that console game has not authorized the copying, performance, display, or derivative work created when a console game is played on a PC, then the creation and use of that emulator constitutes an infringement of the copyrights in the console game." Go buy the console and the game. A lot of people spent time designing both."

I disagree here. If you OWN THE GAME you should have the right to play it on your computer if you wish to. The only problem is -- most ROM downloads ARE illegal. It's a very touchy grey area and Boycott RIAA can neither support nor disapprove of downloading ROMS. The only opinions I can give are simply that IF YOU OWN THE GAME you SHOULD have the RIGHT to also be able to play it on your PC if you wish to -- just like with movies and music. I wish the Game Industry would have these old legacy games available for $1 each download and release their own emulator software's for sale. They have done this TO A POINT but it's only been software packs of a small handful of popular games -- not necessarily the games YOU wanted and certainly not most of the ones they've made overall.

"Is it OK to use paid P2P services?
No. It is illegal to use any P2P service to copy or distribute copyrighted material, even if you paid for the program and even if said program claims to provide "100% legal downloads!"... and even if they're advertised on this site. This includes programs like Kazaa, Limewire, and WinMX. While the program itself is not illegal, the use of it to download copyrighted music IS STILL ILLEGAL, even if you paid for the program. See alternatives for a list of good and bad music services."

We agree here as well.

"Excuse: It's ok, as long as I don't sell it.
Wrong! The U.S. Copyright Law says that you can make personal copies for yourself, but not for others, even if you're giving them away! That means that you can't make a copy of a CD for a friend, send someone an MP3, share your MP3 collection, or anything of the sort. It's only for the person who bought the music."

Yep. We're fighting to make sure you always still retain the right to make personal copies for yourself. If the RIAA had its way -- you wouldn't even be allowed to do that!

"Excuse: The record companies are ripping people off!
Oh, please! You're not Robinhood, you know. Sure, the record companies are getting rich. That's what companies are supposed to do! What did you expect? Think that $15 is too much for a CD? Don't buy it! But, that doesn't give you the right to steal it! Try walking into your local Wal-Mart and stealing a TV just because you think they're charging too much for it. It's just not right, nor is it legal. Even if the physical CD doesn't cost much to make, there was a lot of work that went into making the content of that CD. However, when you get right down to it, that doesn't even matter. Even if they wanted to charge $50 for a CD, it's their legal right to do so. They made the music, and they own the copyright. They can do whatever they want with it. Who are you to tell them what to do with their property?"

Just because it's their "legal right" does not make it RIGHT! There's ALOT of unconstitutional laws. However, the "Robin Hood" route is certainly not the smart way to go. It may have worked in mid evil times, but that was then -- and this is now. If you want to steal from the rich and give to the poor -- then steal from the rich by not buying their product! Give to the poor by supporting Non-RIAA Independent Music!

"Excuse: The artists don't get the money anyway.
The artists certainly get some of the money. After all, they're agreed to some kind of contract with the record company before that CD was ever made. There are two angles to this excuse. First of all, the artist is probably pretty happy with the money they're making, even if it means that the record company is making money, too. As I said, they signed a legal agreement to get paid exactly what they're getting paid. The second part to this excuse is... what does it matter what you think? Even if you don't think the artist is getting paid as much as they should, I don't see them asking for your help. If they're getting ripped off by the recording company (and I assure you that they're not), don't you think they'd hire a lawyer and sue? I don't think they'd ask you to steal their music... do you?"

Yeah, but they didn't know they were going to get .. EDITED .. and sign their souls away to the devil. So as was previously said -- If you want to steal from the rich and give to the poor -- then steal from the rich by not buying their product! Give to the poor by supporting Non-RIAA Independent Music!

"Excuse: They're so rich anyway -- they won't miss my $15.
So we're back to the Robinhood thing, are we? Fine. So who are you to decide how rich is too rich? I mean, compare yourself to some of the people less fortunate than yourself. What if they got to decide that you're too rich and that you won't miss that $20 in your pocket? Stealing is stealing, no matter how rich the owner or how poor the thief."

They WILL miss your $15! So don't give it to them! Support Non-RIAA Independent Music or hurt the RIAA profits by using services such as Rhapsody and Itunes. How does using flat-rate Internet LEGAL download services hurt the RIAA? I think George explains it well right here: http://www.boycott-riaa.com/article/21139

"Excuse: It's how I find out about new songs and artists.
Too bad. You'll have to find another way of finding out about music... stealing doesn't cut it. Turn on the radio. Turn on the TV. Tune to one of the free steaming sites I mentioned in my legal alternatives page. I mean, come on. How did you find out about music before you started stealing? You still remember those times, right?"

He's right. Theres also tons of NON-RIAA legal alternatives. Dmusic.com, any and all Demoscene sites, indie band sites and much more! Get on Google and look around! Theres tons of places for legal alternatives for both RIAA and Independent Music!

"Excuse: I wouldn't have bought the CD, so they didn't lose a sale.
So it's good enough to steal, but not good enough to pay for? Whatever. I don't care if you're too poor, or if you think music isn't as good as it ought to be, or whatever other stupid excuse you come up with. It just doesn't matter. If you think the music is good enough to download and listen to, then you should be out there buying the CD or downloading it legally. You may not think that they're missing out on anything just because you're too cheap to pay for what you enjoy and use, but that doesn't make it legal."

Being too poor or you think it's too high priced isn't an excuse at all. It's a valid problem. However, stealing doesn't solve this problem, so he is right about that one.

"Why is the RIAA suing their customers?
Now this is an easy one! The Record Industry Association of America is suing their customers because... (are you ready for this?)... because they're breaking the law! I know, I know... it's a huge shock. Seriously, though, there are a few reasons to this. First of all, they can. If you're downloading copyrighted music, you're breaking the law. I think we've pretty much covered that. If you're still unclear about that, scroll up. So, as long as people are stealing music instead of buying it, the RIAA is going to protect it's interests the only way it can -- legally! And they'll win, too. They're right. Those stealing the music are wrong. Say what you will about the RIAA, but you'd do the same thing if you were in their position. If someone stole something from you, you'd want to prosecute them to the fullest extent of the law."

Oh for Christ sake -- with this I can't agree at all. They're slaughtering sheep, not defending their property. Attacking children and ruining lives is NOT a valid course of action. Again, most of these people didn't even realize they were doing anything wrong. The RIAA however does not care what they did or did not know. Even though everyone has been RAISED to know that walking into a store and shop lifing IS ILLEGAL -- we were NOT raised to know what downloads are legal or illegal and it is very scary for people traveling that road without a guide and not knowing where or how to find a guide. The ONLY GOOD THING this fracus leading to its final stupidity will accomplish is that the RIAA has revealed themselves as the heartless monsters they are -- and it's made such a loud boom internationally that the vast majority of people are in earshot of the sound of that boom.

I also think it's a good thing because people can openly see the suffering that families have endured that should have never been brought upon them -- which is making people lose favor with the RIAA and this will inevitably bring them to their knees. I don't think Boycott RIAA will be the sword that slays this dragon. They're doing a fine job of slaying themselves. But with luck -- i'd like us to be the final nail in their proverbial coffin.

"Why did you start this site?
I started this site because I'm sick and tired of hearing excuses and lies concerning stealing intellectual property on the Internet. I'm tired of hearing people saying, "oh, it's ok if..." and it really concerns me that a lot of people just don't know that what they're doing is wrong. I'd like to believe that, in some way, most people are good and honest. Hopefully, just by knowing that what they're doing is wrong, they'll reconsider their actions instead of going along with the herd until they're all shot down. If you know something is wrong, and even illegal, then you shouldn't do it. It's really as easy as that."

I can mostly agree with this. In fact -- this site has a large problem of people coming here more than willing to "***** for the sake of bitching" but are not willing to step up to bat and actually help take action to invoke reform. Most people might think "Well what can I do? I'm only one person!" .. well, UNITED WE STAND AND DIVIDED WE FALL! Remember those words? The RIAA is a hand full of heartless corporate fat cats. The people on the Internet number IN THE BILLIONS. Surely, together -- we can make a difference, yes?

"Why should I care?
Because it's illegal! I mean, come on. We live in a civilized society made up of laws. If you don't like the law, you should work to change it, not break it! You'd probably feel differently if you were on the other side of the table. When it comes down to it, I don't think most people would steal anything in real life. You know that it's wrong to walk into a store, grab something that isn't yours, and leave without paying. When you're online, you have a few things going for you: (1) You feel that you're anonymous (although you're not, as you might be able to tell from the RIAA lawsuits). (2) You think everyone else is doing it. (3) It's just so easy, and there is no perceived consequence to any party. Well, you're wrong. Stealing intellectual property on the Internet is the same as stealing anything else in the world. You're taking something that doesn't belong to you and breaking the law. Do the right thing, and encourage others to do the same."

No -- thats not why you should care. You should care because the rich and the heartless create bias laws that screw the poor and line their own pockets with gold. Legality and Morality often times tend to be two very different things. So no, you shouldn't care because it's illegal. You should care because it's the RIAA is in the WRONG and that STEALING only makes the point of the enemy! It's a propaganda war for the purposes of control, domination and profit. If you do things like download illegally, your just giving the enemy more amunition to fire back at you and destroy you.

So you should not download illegaly. Not because of the fact that its illegal -- but because of the fact that even such an illegal act supports them, no mater how much they claim it harms them. Because illegally downloading gives them more power. Gives them more fuel for the propaganda fire.

The more they can make their case, the better chances they have of altering copyright laws to screw us even more! So don't illegaly download because if you do -- your giving up your HUMAN RIGHTS for the sake of an 8MB file!

"The truth about Fair Use.
"Fair Use" is the exception to the copyright law. Thanks to a wonderful little thing called freedom of speech, it's believed that we should be allow to use portions of a copyrighted work if you're critiquing or commenting on that work. For example, if you were writing a review of a new CD, you are allowed to use a short clip (not a full song) from that CD during your review. You don't have to ask the permission of the copyright holder to do this. Fair use also allows limited use of copyrighted ideas for the purpose of parody (making fun of the original).

There are four basic checks to see if a particular situation falls under "Fair Use". (1) First, what is the purpose and character of use? Did you add anything useful or of value to the work? (2) What is the nature of the copyrighted work? For example, if the work is unpublished, you'll probably get into trouble by using it. (3) What is the amount and substantiality of the portion taken? This may be the most important one. It's illegal to use too much of, or the most important parts of, any copyrighted work. A very small clip or quote is usually acceptable. (4) Finally, what effect does the use make on the potential market? If your use will deprive the copyright owner of income, you're likely to get into trouble. Sharing a song with a friend is not considered fair use."

Thats how it SHOULD work but it DOESNT. In all actuality -- remixes are legal under these laws but if you make a remix and have it available for download, they can still nail you to a cross. Even if you have that short clip available -- the RIAA retains the right to determine how long of a clip is too long and they can change their minds at will. They can say one persons 30 second clip is legal and that someone elses 10 second clip is illegal. Why? Because they hold the copyright and they are legally allowed to govern that copyright in any way they see fit! Thats why its UNFAIR USE as it stands at the moment. They can bend the fair use laws as easily as you bend gum everytime you chew it in your mouth.

Why? Because they have the money to outlast you in a court battle. It doesn't mater that the fair use laws say you can use that 30 second clip. They don't want you to and they have the right to take you to court over it. If you don't have the money to fight that battle -- YOU LOSE!

So to end this article -- stealingisillegal.com has good intensions -- but the road to hell is paved with them!

This thread is currently available at http://www.boycott-riaa.com/article/21166

As you can see, we don't disagree all THAT much.

On a personal note, for my OWN opinion, the only thing I DO disagree with is the
use of the word 'Stealing' in place of the correct term for the illegal activity that IS
alleged .... Copyright Infringement.

Stealing removes the availability and use of physical property, so that the owner no longer
has any access or benefit of the property.

This is NOT the alleged crime being committed.

The use of the term 'Stealing' in place of Copyright Infringement is Hyperbole at best,
deception, at worst.


I sincerely. hope that you are willing to allow this post to be seen, and discussed.

Dreddsnik
Boycott-RIAA.com

[GoneForNow]

Can someone tell me when TSG became a place for people to use to dispute other web sites? I think, but not my call, that we don't want to become the billboard/graffiti wall for the Internet.

[Dreddnik]

Can someone tell me when TSG became a place for people to use to dispute other web sites? I think, but not my call, that we don't want to become the billboard/graffiti wall for the Internet.

First off ...

Making this a 'billboard' for other sites was not my intent.

This was the only way I could find to respond to the position held
by this sites administrator, as outlined on one of HIS other sites.
There is no public comment feature available there.

After looking over the forums here, I hoped it would be appropriate to
start this discussion, in the community ( off topic threads ).

Additionally, there are MANY misconceptions about the way the RIAA does things,
the lawsuits, the victims, etc .. that can benefit from a TWO sided discussion.

A civil, intelligent, two sided discussion.

The administrator of this site is not only of a differring opinion ( in some ways ) from
ours, but he is and civil and intelligent representative of that opinion. I had hoped to
show him that we are NOT what he thinks we are.

[GoneForNow]

So, essentially, you are calling him out. How macho. Maybe the reason there isn't a comment feature at the other site is because he doesn't want to engage in a discussion of it? I don't know but if this thread gets closed you'll have your answer.

[Mulderator]

Getting in a reply before the close!

[linskyjack]

Don't people have anything better to do with their time then defend the stealing of copyrighted material from the creative community?

[GoneForNow]

Originally Posted by linskyjack

Don't people have anything better to do with their time then defend the stealing of copyrighted material from the creative community?

Yeah, its also almost as bad as quoting other members in your signature.

[linskyjack]

That only took about five minutes to set up and remains until changed. Lately you haven't given me any good material to work with. Your behavior has been modified!

[GoneForNow]

Originally Posted by linskyjack

That only took about five minutes to set up and remains until changed. Lately you haven't given me any good material to work with. Your behavior has been modified!

So if its changed does it remain? Behavior modified? Nope, not so.

[Dreddnik]

Don't people have anything better to do with their time then defend the stealing of copyrighted material from the creative community?

Stealing from the creative community .....

Accounting Practices
Audits routinely detect unpaid royalties. Music industry lawyer Don Engel, who estimates that labels misreport and underpay artist royalties by 10% to 40%, says industry accounting practices are "intentionally fraudulent." Music writer Dave Marsh describes the process as "an entrenched system whose prowess and conniving makes Enron look like amateur hour." Royalties, based on complex and antiquated formulas that favor labels, are disbursed only after artists pay back advances, recording costs and other expenses.

The surviving Beatles and relatives of the band's late members have begun legal action against record company EMI to get royalties allegedly worth £30m.

Steve Vai sez:
It is unheard of in our industry for an artist to undergo an audit of a label and not discover a large percent of their royalties unpaid, that's if an artist can afford the time and money to audit their label. One in every thousand artists have the resources to audit. There are stock calculations that labels make in order to justify "creative accounting", and when the artist does find outstanding funds that are rightfully due them, labels "negotiate" what the artist will actually receive as a settlement, and most of the time it's not more than a third of what is found. Artists have very little to no recourse.

From 1998:
This past April, after a five-year lawsuit, the Kingsmen triumphed in court over the record company that had stiffed them. And they did so using a novel, and improbable, strategy that could serve as a model for abused bands in the future—and put the fear of Louie into some sectors of the recording industry.

The week before Peggy Lee died, she finally won a class- action suit against her former label. Lee and several hundred other artists and their heirs were awarded $4.75 million in unpaid royalties, miscalculated royalties and unauthorized deductions from royalties. Current acts, including Courtney Love and the Dixie Chicks, have lawsuits pending over accounting practices.

“It’’s bizarre in this day and age when you audit a record label, in 99.99 percent of the audits, the labels are found to have underpaid the artist,” said Simon Renshaw, who manages the Dixie Chicks. “I asked an auditor who’’s been involved in 9,000 cases how many revealed an overpayment by the labels to the artist: the answer was one. Take that to a statistician.”

April, 2006Members of Cheap Trick and The Allman Brothers Band, two veteran rock acts that signed deals in a pre-digital universe have sued Sony BMG for unpaid royalties.

October, 1994
The only artists who are not being substantially ripped off are artists who will spend $50,000 to audit. Essentially, every major artist audits every record company every three years. If they're a major artist, there is real money at stake. They are always being under-accounted to in some manner.

From 1957
The Nelsons are in litigation with Verve Records over Rickey's recording contract. Verve who had issued his first two releases sues for breach of contract when Ricky signs with Imperial Records. The Nelsons countersue asking for $42,000 in unpaid royalties. Then Verve countersues for one million dollars in damages.

From 1998
[T]he Smiths' drummer got a High Court judgement which brought him 1 million in unpaid royalties. In 1997, the British Academy of Songwriters, Composers and Authors sued EMI for the alleged loss of royalties on songs written in the 1960s and 1970s. Sony and fifty-four US-based recording companies have been sued for $520 million by artists as recompense for unpaid pensions.

From 2004
It seems record companies had been withholding some $50 million in unpaid royalties from artists they "couldn’t find".

Record companies can track down a 12 year old girl to sue for illegally downloading music, but they can’t find P.Diddy. They also didn’t know where to find Elvis, David Bowie, Dave Mathews, Gloria Estefan, John Mellencamp, and Dolly Parton.

November 30, 2006
Rapper SNOOP DOGG is suing his former record label for unpaid royalties. The hip-hop star - real name CALVIN BROADUS - filed his complaint against Priority Records in Los Angeles Superior Court, claiming he's owed more than $2 million (GBP1.02 million) in back payments.

is suing his former record label for $540,000 (GBP300,000) in unpaid royalties.

[url="http://www.undercover.com.au/News-Story.aspx?id=1017"]Olivia Newton-John is suing Universal Music for unpaid royalties from the 1978 smash hit soundtrack to 'Grease'.

Martha Reeves
Like many other female Motown singers of the time Martha feels that the company did not treat her fairly, indeed she was the first to sue it for unpaid royalties.

Green Day
Due to concerns over unpaid royalties, Green Day has pulled their catalog from Lookout!.



No one here is defending stealing from the creative community.

[Dreddnik]

Don't people have anything better to do with their time then defend the stealing of copyrighted material from the creative community?

Please show me, in anything that I have posted, where I have defended Copyright
Infringement ??

[TraVelSonic]

It is my personal opinion that to disagree alone with making this thread evolve into unpleantries is ok, and can be avoided without keeping out rebuttals and fair discussion on a topic.

Personally however I feel that the author of the site DOES jump to conclusions about b-r dot com, and in ideology both are quite on the same pages.

I feel to make the site in qurestion better, I think the words of uncertainty should be removed - either something (factually) is true, or it isn't.

On that topic as well, I remeber reading that long as illicit reverse-engineering or use of copyrighted bios is not used/involved, emulators ARE legal, and if the files are public domain, or authorized, OR you dumped cartridges of games yourself for use in an emulator it IS legal to use them.

Yes, majority doesn't do it like that, but don't you think if THAT held as much weight as some people believe that it would definitively allways be illegal?

Also, if p2p can be used legally, as the site admin shows, why not promote the use for only legal files? Why should the illegal uses somehow nullify the legal uses? Doesn't that elitist "unpure - can't salvage - destroy!" mentality seem more harmful than helpful in the scheme of things?

Also, I strongly object to his meshing of legals and morals, which follow similar lines no doubt, but also have deep divides. By blurring the lines (for example, "Legal alternatives to stealing." on the page to legal alternatives for downloadin music) he makes the issue less clear. Stealing, by law, is separate from copyright infringement, surely if he wants to tell people the facts he should keep morals (stealing, ) separate from legal (theft, copyright infringement) and not engage in unprofessional hyperbole.

Also, the "Bad Programs" list also serves as an arrogant, and ignorant look at the usage of p2p file-sharing programs. For one, they can be used legally, the admin even made an example on his site as well. Why then does he not show places where content that can be legally shared on these networks can be found? Also, his stance on these "bad programs" beggs the question, is it immoral if I am using the programs for purposes that are legal, like sharing content that I made, is public domain, or is authorized? Surely that is a contradiction, is it not?

On the topic of the creative community, does the author of the site think, on an unrelated note, that copyrights are fair to the individual artists? Are the lengths of time in his eye fair? Are safeguards against corporate malpractice adequate? I'd like to know.

If you are objecting to a discussion solely on the parent's standpoint, partially feared based on generalizations, well, I feel you guys, in the context of certain debate of course (not always), no better than the "humans" at PETA2(1). I feel that though the idea of the site is good, it is hard to read without sorting through the opinion and fact.

(1): Yes, I have been there before in case anybody asks, yes they are much worse than anybody here can ever dream of being.

If this at all affects my being a poster on the techguy forums, then I feel sorry that ignorance has taken control of common sense and reasoning. If not, then.... cool.

Also, I think the author should add Dmusic to the list of sites to get legal music. Even though it is indie/unsigned, that should not even in the slightest matter if you truely want an unbiased list of legal sites to get music.


Finally, Dreddnik never once defended copyright infringement... I challenge this notion on the basis that this is unbacked flamebait just invoked to provoke hostility.

[TechGuy]

I made that links page a few years ago (2002 maybe?)... since then, I've tried to remove the dead links, but I didn't reevaluate the existing ones. When I first went to the anti-RIAA page, they were only bashing the RIAA for (in my opinion) rightfully suing people who stole copyrighted material. If that's not still the case, I'll certainly remove the link.

In any case, I agree that copyright infringement is legally different from stealing -- I'm just making the point that both are illegal and morally wrong.

I've got to get things ready for an early-morning server maintenance tomorrow, but hopefully I'll have more time to read their site (and this already long thread) in the next few days. I don't think it will, but if things get out of hand here, I encourage a Mod to close it until I get some time. Thanks!

[TraVelSonic]

Hopefull this thread will stay contained, as it is only two members showed any form of baiting but hopefully that will be ignored. It is good that you are cool about discussing the site.

[iltos]

our hope is that this can be discussed as a topic and not get drawn into a personal conflict over points of view....