Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
While this is different than movies and music files let me tell you are story about guitar tablature. A few years ago there were a few guitar tab sites where people transposed songs and posted them for free to share. Some where more correct than others but it was info out there given by those willing to share.
Along came the music publishing corporations a threatened lawsuits and the majority of sites where taken down. These publishing corporations wanted people to have access to only tab they sell.
Because I am into Stevie Ray Vaughn and there are ENOUGH songs I want to learn by him I recently bought a SRV tab book published by a so called professional corporation called Hal Leonard publishing. I paid $20 dollars for the book that since being made by a so called professional source you would think that the song transcribes where correct but they weren't, the transcribes were so off I wound up going to a tab site and getting tab for free that was transcribed as SRV played it.
So much for a legitimate source. Maybe had Hal Leonard cared more about their product I might have bought from them again but I won't I'll go back to getting free tab. But corporations like Hal Leonard don't want me to have access to that, they want me to have to pay for a product that isn't even worth it. Guitar instruction sites shut down by music industry ? The Register
The issue isn't the product they sell; it's getting any product without paying for it. The instance you mentioned is just another faulty sale, one where you didn't get what you think you were buying. But, YOU DID buy it, rather than steal it.
Downloading Stevie Ray tunes for free denies the publishing company, the recording company and Stevie Ray's heirs their legal income from the songs he made. In other words, you're stealing from them and that's a crime. It's also as much a crime for those "free" websites to offer his material without paying royalties as it's a crime for a fence to sell stolen jewelry.
The issue isn't the product they sell; it's getting any product without paying for it. The instance you mentioned is just another faulty sale, one where you didn't get what you think you were buying. But, YOU DID buy it, rather than steal it.
Well to focus on the guitar tab for a moment, here is a instance where people made their own transcribes and posted it for free in the spirit of giving, not for profit so others could learn to play a song, one of the benefits of the internet and no censorship. And in many instances they shared a better product than what a corporation could even if you paid for it.
Which shows the fact that many corporations don't care about their product as much as they do money and don't want to have to be better by having to compete plus it shows the fact that like it or not the internet has changed everything and has opened up choices for people to have more than just choice A or choice B and that corporations are not friends to freedom or advancement.
Corporations offering a certain product or service can fight evolution and revolution all they want but in the end they will either have to adapt or go the way of those that once built steam engines.
Which in seems plausible when it comes to another form of product or service like fossil fuels,that industry would do everything in its power to halt advancement away from fossil fuel even though the advancement would better serve people and even be less expensive for people possibly. Even though that industry could adapt and become part of the advancement. For instance Blockbuster is on the verge of going under to companies like Netflix. Blockbuster can either be in denial or it can adapt and offer competition. Or futilely Blockbuster could lobby and bribe congress to ban the internet and set back time for self preservation.
Well to focus on the guitar tab for a moment, here is a instance where people made their own transcribes and posted it for free in the spirit of giving, not for profit so others could learn to play a song, one of the benefits of the internet and no censorship.
Yes, I'm sure their motives were pure, but the fact remains that they offered stolen goods. Had they paid the royalties for the use of that product, everything would have been fine.
Quote:
And in many instances they shared a better product than what a corporation could even if you paid for it.
That's beside the point. The quality of the product isn't the issue; stealing it is. That's like saying I shouldn't be prosecuted because I stole a cheap mattress instead of a top of the line one.
Quote:
Which shows the fact that many corporations don't care about their product as much as they do money and don't want to have to be better by having to compete plus it shows the fact that like it or not the internet has changed everything and has opened up choices for people to have more than just choice A or choice B and that corporations are not friends to freedom or advancement.
Regardless of how you feel about corporations in general, do you, or do you not, agree they should be paid for their product?
Quote:
Corporations offering a certain product or service can fight evolution and revolution all they want but in the end they will either have to adapt or go the way of those that once built steam engines.
Which in seems plausible when it comes to another form of product or service like fossil fuels,that industry would do everything in its power to halt advancement away from fossil fuel even though the advancement would better serve people and even be less expensive for people. Even though that industry could adapt and become part of the advancement. For instance Blockbuster is on the verge of going under to companies like Netflix. Blockbuster can either be in denial or it can adapt and offer competition. Or futilely Blockbuster could lobby and bribe congress to ban the internet and set back time for self preservation.
Yes, some new way to buy and sell copyrighted material will have to come along eventually, but it's not here yet. In the meantime, just the fact that the system is archaic isn't an excuse for theft, is it?
What these bills will do is block vids like these guys and hold youtube accountable or hold CD accountablefor having the link to the youtube vid under lawsuit. So this band is in Croatia and I think they are real good. Doubtful that I would ever know about them, somebody that is in Croatia if it were not for youtube.
So these guys are playing a cover. If the corporations had any brains they would see that this is advertisement for them that will turn people on to the original artist. But no, they want to block you so you only see and hear what they want, and if they don't want you to see or hear they will use their deep pockets of influence and money to which you can't compete against and that should really burn and anger you
Yes, I'm sure their motives were pure, but the fact remains that they offered stolen goods. Had they paid the royalties for the use of that product, everything would have been fine.
That's beside the point. The quality of the product isn't the issue; stealing it is. That's like saying I shouldn't be prosecuted because I stole a cheap mattress instead of a top of the line one.
Regardless of how you feel about corporations in general, do you, or do you not, agree they should be paid for their product?
Yes, some new way to buy and sell copyrighted material will have to come along eventually, but it's not here yet. In the meantime, just the fact that the system is archaic isn't an excuse for theft, is it?
Actually there are clauses in the copyright laws where someone is allowed to show or use material if it is for educational purposes. But even if it is and you have a legit reason like that if the big corporations demand it be banned most places like youtube will comply out of fear and little ole you stand little chance at fighting it. Big money wins, average Joe looses......
Actually there are clauses in the copyright laws where someone is allowed to show or use material if it is for educational purposes. But even if it is and you have a legit reason like that if the big corporations demand it be banned most places like youtube will comply out of fear and little ole you stand little chance at fighting it. Big money wins, average Joe looses......
You may try to couch this in Us vs. Them terms, but that's not being honest. Just because they are corporations, and we're the little guys, does not give us the right to use their property without their permission and without paying them for it.
By that kind of reckoning, I should be able to go down and help myself to new Chevrolet because that "big corporation" isn't being fair by demanding I pay for it.
It's not exactly a part of this discussion, but I felt like answering this comment of yours (the quote feature doesn't work with text included in a quote):
"I am not entirely sure what you are speaking of regarding these FBI orders, I am just not familiar enough with them, with that said I cannot imagine a scenario where the government can deprive someone of a property interest with no due process with the possible exception of taxation."
It happens every day as a result of roadside shake downs.
If the officer who stops you has a reason to suspect you're a drug smuggler (and the list of probable reasons for an arrest are so broad that even too much money in your wallet is enough), he can arrest you on suspicion and jail you.
But, the story doesn't end there. Long before you ever go to court and long before you're found guilty, the arresting authority can seize all your assets, including your car, bank accounts and home and sell them off. They get to keep a percentage of the "take" as an incentive to be a part of the Drug War.
Your only due process comes AFTER THE FACT. You do not have the right to be present when the seizure order is issued or to contest it. Your only option is to sue for the value of your property after you've been found not-guilty.
So, as you can see, the precedent for seizing property without what we normally think of as due process is well established.
That is not how it works. Yes you can arrest someone and yes you can arrest them for even things like speeding tickets. With that said they cannot auction off your stuff until you have had due process. Most of the time with drug dealers they deny ownership of contraband for obvious reasons. You cannot contest a seizure at the time that is true, but if you claim ownership of the property they cannot sell it off unless you have had due process and been convicted (and I also see it as problematic if the police are just selling off evidence that doesn't sound like something that the either the DA or the defense would be pleased with and it is not something that I could see occuring in any ethical investigation). As to road side shake downs I think you are totally wrong there. There are in fact a lot of rules and most of the time you see that happen the person who is being shaken down gave consent. Furthermore I would ask that you present some sort of case where someone's could be just searched, have money found, and be arrested for having money. The only thing like that is a Terry search for weapons and only weapons.
Anyways this is all off topic since this is 4th amendment issues. With that said even if you want to try and make a 4th amendment arguement that courts can both have warrent issuing and seizure powers it has been determined in cases like Lo Ji sales vs New York that there has to be a separation between a person doing the seizing and a person issuing the court permission for the seizure so even if you argue that it still fails since you are giving one body both police and magistrate power.
Last edited by Randomstudent; 01-19-2012 at 08:13 PM..
By that kind of reckoning, I should be able to go down and help myself to new Chevrolet because that "big corporation" isn't being fair by demanding I pay for it.
Actually the analogy would be closer to like if you go buy a Chevy and then GMC sues you because you gave the car to a friend to drive and use claiming you have no right to allow someone to use your car because they should go buy one themself. Or even worse, they suing a used car place because they want you to have to buy a new car instead.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
