MP3 downloading

[Zergplex]

Zergplex Says

I've not seen the problem of license vs. media addressed.

The industry acts like you buy the media, and the content is free. In fact, the media is trivial and most of the fee is for a license for the content.

Software example first.

I have a customer that paid (someone else) about $300 x 9 computers a while back to get a a copy of Office installed on each. They received one set of CDs and 9 certificates with "magic numbers" on them which allowed them to install. Note they were honest in buying 9 licenses -- they could have bought 1 and installed it 9 times and M$ would not have know.

Roll the clock forward a few years and it's time for me to replace their computers. They want Office installed; they own 9 licenses. But .... they've lost a CD.

Microsoft and it's distributors would not sell them the one missing CD at any price. They would sell them a set at full price (about $300) and included a strong warning with the offer than it could be used on only one computer.

In other words, Microsoft insisted that this customer re-buy the 9 licenses he'd already purchased for an additional $2500. All he needed was replacement media, $10 in most cases.

Now about music. I have a bunch of vinyl records. I love some of the songs on them, but I can't get them onto CD. Even if I had a setup to play vinyls into a sound card, many have been damaged in storage over the years, and there's even people who will say I'm pirating by doing so.

Now I bought a license to the song. I had even, under "fair use", copied songs from them onto tape so I could listen to the songs on my car stereo, and the cost of the blank tape I copied them onto actually included a very small kickback to the industry in the name of "lost royalties".

Can I get replacement media? I bought the right to listen to the music years ago.

No -- some are "out of print" and I have to buy a license (pay $15-$20) a second time for those I can find to special order.

How about movies? I bought "Lord of the Rings" special edition DVD and the darn kids put a scratch on the movie DVD about a week after it got home.

Can I get replacement media?

Only if I pay another $30, the same price I paid originally. I'd gladly trade them the scratched DVD for an unscratched DVD and include a fair price for the media.

It's greedy and unmoral for industry to bitch about not getting license fees when those who have already paid the license fee can't get media.

This post actually intrigues me enough to join back in this debate. I don't think I agree with your statements totally, but I will say that I have never thought about that side of the story. Good show, now I have something to brood about for awile ^_^

-Zergplex

 

[living2serve]

sultrasweeetie,
I'm not trying to piss you off when I say this, so take a deep breath and just read before responding. A valid point was made about the possibility of being sued. I have a Masters Degree in Criminal Justice and I am currently taking an extensive course on Computer Technology and Crime. You could very easily be taken to court over your admitance on this site to downloading. This is a free site, with access by anyone, in fact, I could download most everything you have on your computer with a few strokes of the keyboard right now, from my personal computer,and it would be all the evidence I need. And this isn't even my area of expertise. Imagine what someone who is hired by the music industry could do. And it is all admissable in court. I'm not going to even get into this debate, I'm giving you some friendly advise. Watch what you say on the web. It's free info to be used by anyone. That's just my FRIENDLY advise, so please, take it as such.

 

[Bobmi357]

Re: License vs. Media

How about movies? I bought "Lord of the Rings" special edition DVD and the darn kids put a scratch on the movie DVD about a week after it got home.

Can I get replacement media?

Only if I pay another $30, the same price I paid originally. I'd gladly trade them the scratched DVD for an unscratched DVD and include a fair price for the media.

It's greedy and unmoral for industry to bitch about not getting license fees when those who have already paid the license fee can't get media.

I don't get this. What if you bought a DVD player and a week later your kid shoves a peanut butter sandwich in the disk tray and closes it, you still can't replace it.

Your analogy is full of holes. Sony will calmly sit there waiting for you to pony up for another DVD player and not offer to replace one damaged by your kids. Don't get angry with Sony when Sony didn't force that PB&J sandwhich into the player. Place blame on where it belongs, not on the manufacturer.

Your client losing a disk is typical of a company which doesn't have a good handle on maintaining installation copies. In my old company all installation copys were kept in a safe in another building, along with copies of the original purchase orders and software keys. Again its NOT the fault of the manufacturer, the client is to blame.

How many times have you returned to a client to fix a problem only to discover they had inadequate backups? Smart companies make backing up computers part of the job descriptions, dumb companies go broke buying the same software over and over and over.

 

[ReadyOne]

Re: Re: License vs. Media

Your analogy is full of holes. Sony will calmly sit there waiting for you to pony up for another DVD player and not offer to replace one damaged by your kids. Don't get angry with Sony when Sony didn't force that PB&J sandwhich into the player. Place blame on where it belongs, not on the manufacturer.

Your client losing a disk is typical of a company which doesn't have a good handle on maintaining installation copies. In my old company all installation copys were kept in a safe in another building, along with copies of the original purchase orders and software keys. Again its NOT the fault of the manufacturer, the client is to blame.

Three kinds of property

We are dealing with intellectual property here. In economic terms, software is one of the purest items than can be rented, just like land. It has no need for depreciation nor maintenance as would a house or car. All such pure things were called "real property" by the economists for that reason, or were until property rights were extended to cover ideas.

Intellectual property, being a newcomer and not obviously touchable like land, is being treated as a third kind of property instead of real property. This is good, because while you can't copy land, you can copy an idea, just like you can make another piece of physical property. And while you can destroy a piece of physical property, you can't destroy an idea no more than you can destroy real property.

So we have three kinds of property: physical, real, and intellectual. Please don't turn one into another.

My opening statement said that the industry was treating the intellectual property (music, video, software) similar to physical property. They are different and can't be treated the same.

In fact, what we have is a hybrid. The media (CD) is physical property. The music, program, video is intellectual property. It is not correct to lump them together and treat them as only physical property or only intellectual property. The law doesn't treat physical property and intellectual property the same way, and the industry needs to conform to the law.

The DVD player vs. the Peanut-butter & Jelly sandwich

Bob, why are you trying to equate a physical item (DVD player) with an intellectual idea (DVD contents)?

For physical property, such as the VCR in your example, I can buy a replacement tray from Sony parts and install it, or I can take the machine to the shop for repair. I don't have to buy a whole new one. And even if I choose to buy a whole new DVD player, I don't have to rebuy all the DVDs in my collection. I can play them on my other DVD player.

There's law about companies being required to provide spare parts on an equitable basis. Why not law about providing media on an equitable basis?

To continue your inapplicable analogy, what if you couldn't take your car to the dealer (or any other shop) for repair -- the dealer insisted that you buy a new car when only your battery had died?

Do you think the car analogy is a bad one? If you consider a program or song to be physical like a car, it seems to fit. But a program or song or video itself isn't physical -- it's an idea. A PBJ sandwich can't ruin an idea.

The customer who didn't have a backup

Just for the record, making a backup copy is/was forbidden by the license. And to avoid your shifting of the moral responsibility for bad work habits to the customer, let us assume that an employee (like the office manager charged with keeping it safe) stole it when they quit, which is in fact what very well may have happened. So let us postulate an "act of God" lost the CD and no one is to blame so the problem still remains -- where to (legally) get media.

Given that my client owns the right to use an idea (be it software or patent), why should his loss of one specific expression of the idea (plan, drawing, recording) cause him to loose the right to use the idea?

He's paying the price for loosing his CD; the question is should the amount be $2500 or $10?

If a singer looses their music, should the concert be canceled? If an actor looses a script, should the play be canceled? Remember here -- rights to perform the concert or play are being paid separate from the cost of the sheet music or script, and are considerably larger than one score or script.

My customer wants to buy another copy of the music ($10). The license holder wants him to but the rights to an additional performance ($2500).

Which is fair? Pay two large fees for one performance, or pay 1 large fee for one performance plus a tiny fee to cover the negligent or accidental loss of the music/script.

Which is fair? Pay two large fees for one computer, or pay 1 large fee for one computer plus a tiny fee to cover the negligent or accidental loss of the program CD?

My point, one more time

Again, what I am calling for is that we consider this problem as one of intellectually property, not physical property. The content has to be separated from the media, and both treated as the different things they are -- intellectual and physical properties.

Coda for Bob

Bob, nothing personal, but step back and reign in your anger from getting you programs ripped off. It wasn't fair. We need ways to protect content delivery. But to me, you're lashing out too hard too far against too many, almost like General Patton's statement "Kill them all and let God sort them out".

I believe you've chosen your conclusion, and are offering any words that end with "I'm right" without considering their validity. There are some good arguments, and there are some bad arguments. Remember your Geometry class proofs? Or did you take a philosophy class in college that looked at logic?

We need to make the right things happen for the right reasons not just battle against the wrong results.

 

[ReadyOne]

sultrasweeetie,
I'm not trying to piss you off when I say this, so take a deep breath and just read before responding. A valid point was made about the possibility of being sued. I have a Masters Degree in Criminal Justice and I am currently taking an extensive course on Computer Technology and Crime. You could very easily be taken to court over your admitance on this site to downloading. This is a free site, with access by anyone, in fact, I could download most everything you have on your computer with a few strokes of the keyboard right now, from my personal computer,and it would be all the evidence I need. And this isn't even my area of expertise. Imagine what someone who is hired by the music industry could do. And it is all admissable in court. I'm not going to even get into this debate, I'm giving you some friendly advise. Watch what you say on the web. It's free info to be used by anyone. That's just my FRIENDLY advise, so please, take it as such.

Try it without a warrant. Let's go to court for a fair and open hearing.

Ah hell, just call me a terrorist and then you can throw away the constitution and disappear me.

Aren't they teaching proper procedure in your criminal justice class?

PS: Your computer skills won't get you the contents of a computer in "just a few keystrokes" when accepted good computing practices are employed. Talk to those who do forensics for a living -- physical possession of the hard drive is a general requirement.

PPS: Don't count on the back door most file sharing programs install -- they're well known.

 

[sheath]

Try it without a warrant. Let's go to court for a fair and open hearing.

Ah hell, just call me a terrorist and then you can throw away the constitution and disappear me.

Aren't they teaching proper procedure in your criminal justice class?

You know, you are getting quite defensive about all this. It comes through clearly in your posts.

I did have to mention something here. Reporting someone for downloading is NOT difficult, in fact, it is encouraged by RIAA and made VERY easy to do. And yes, they follow up. And yes, they get warrants almost immediately. And do you really think it is THAT hard to trace it, especially when it is mentioned in a public forum like this one? Please. You might want to read up on 'proper procedure' so far as getting warrants for theft of intellectual property.



Don't make assumptions, Ready One. You usually have very good points. Don't undermine those points by posting something before researching it.

S.

 

[Bobmi357]

Re: Re: Re: License vs. Media

The DVD player vs. the Peanut-butter & Jelly sandwich

Bob, why are you trying to equate a physical item (DVD player) with an intellectual idea (DVD contents)?

For physical property, such as the VCR in your example, I can buy a replacement tray from Sony parts and install it, or I can take the machine to the shop for repair. I don't have to buy a whole new one. And even if I choose to buy a whole new DVD player, I don't have to rebuy all the DVDs in my collection. I can play them on my other DVD player.

Your intellectual property is contained upon physical property. The intellectual property wasn't damaged. The physical media was damaged.

You might make a distinction between intellectual property and physical, but in this particular case you're complaining about a loss to the integrity of the physical media making the information content unavailable.

I'm sorry, but its the old dog ate my homework excuse and then you hand in a torn up sheet of paper. Didn't work when I tried it on the brothers of St. Francis and it doesn't work when you try it on Sony or Microsoft.

Mechanical items with high part counts are expected to eventually break down and be repairable. But that generally only works for high ticket items. Try getting that 20 buck walkman repaired and you'll find its by far cheaper to throw it out and buy a new one.

Companies like Microsoft and Sony have developed policies of not replacing or refunding items that are easily duplicatable. While I may take the time to see if customer X bought my program and replace his lost file, very few of the big software developers will do this.

As for your client, we both know that the client is still at fault. Any IT department worth their weight should retain all installation disks under lock and key. This makes sense to prevent theft as well as for the disaster recovery process. We all know its nearly impossible to find originals for software several years down the road if it isn't maintained under a central control.

If my attitude seems to be too harsh I'm sorry, but the simple fact is, this thread has proven there are two camps. One which contains the people trying to make a living and the other which clearly sees no problem stealing their work. I know its not as black and white as I think it is. But so long as file copying is allowed to run rampant on the net, people will continue to think its ok to steal from others.

Its not an ideal world. I wish to god I never had to worry about pirating. I've even spent time trying to wrestle with several ideas in terms of bringing copy protection to my particular little arena of the software industry. Electronic delivery of software makes copying extremely simple. Too simple if you ask me, but the other options involve too much cost to consider.

 

[living2serve]

I don’t need physical access to your computer; all I need is for you to be online. I don’t need the back door you are referring to either. And, it is not illegal for me to get into your computer. The law is clear about this. As long as I don’t get into your computer with malicious intent, it’s perfectly legal. It is taught to give me the ability to investigate child pornography, online identity theft, online mail order fraud, and yes, even downloading illegally. That is not the point I am trying to make here. My point is that, as many others have pointed out in this forum and some are not getting, is that you are telling us you do this on a public forum. You want a warrant; you just gave me all the probable cause I need to tear your computer apart and any judge would give it to me in a minute flat. I figured someone would blow my response out of the context it was meant. You are assuming I am against you about this; putting words into my mouth like “call me a terrorist”. Quit being so mellow dramatic. You know the old saying about people who assume? Well, I think most people in this forum would agree that the only person you are making an a** out of is yourself never what my point of view was. Frankly, I could care less.
Oh, by the way, I don't need physical access to your hard drive to download it, all I need is for you to be online and I could have access to anything I wanted on your computer. I never said I would, I said I could. I find it ironc that you are lecturing me on on my use of my computer when you use your computer for an illegal purpose. I use my knowledge for worthwhile causes. My knowlegde was taught to me so I can investigate online crimes like child pornography, identity theft, online ordering fraud, online prostitution. But yes, I could also use it to investigate downloading illegally and there is nothing you could do about it. That's the price you pay for all this wonderful technology you use everyday. You have freedom of speech, I have freedom of information. Unless you are taking your computer to court every day and having its contents deemed "sealed information" you have no arguement. But, or course, you don't think you're doing anything wrong, so you have nothing to worry about, right? I personally have better crimes to investigate than little people like you, but, there are people who are hired to just find the little people like you. It's a risk verses reward situation.
If you are willing to take the chance, fine, take it. I'm willing to listen to both sides of the argument. Like it or not though, for the time being, it is illegal, and getting all pissy about screaming on a public forum how you hate it and you’re gonna keep doing it anyway is a stupid risk to take.
To those of you who have presented your point of view rationally kudos to you, to everyone else, if you can't express your opinion rationally and without coming off like a cocky prick, no one is taking your argument seriously anyway, so don't waste our time.

 

[ReadyOne]

You know, you are getting quite defensive about all this. It comes through clearly in your posts.

I did have to mention something here. Reporting someone for downloading is NOT difficult, in fact, it is encouraged by RIAA and made VERY easy to do. And yes, they follow up. And yes, they get warrants almost immediately. And do you really think it is THAT hard to trace it, especially when it is mentioned in a public forum like this one? Please. You might want to read up on 'proper procedure' so far as getting warrants for theft of intellectual property.



Don't make assumptions, Ready One. You usually have very good points. Don't undermine those points by posting something before researching it.

S.

What upset me was a "criminal justice" major who knows a bit about computers trying to show off.

I've worked for a company that built disk drives. I've been in the clean room recovering data from individual platters. I've done forensic work untangling data on disk drives and file systems hiding things in secret places.

It's not the "easy" thing the cj major boasted about.

I also expect such a person to tag all the legal bases, and explain that before he would ever do anything like he says he could, that he would go thorugh the legal channels and get warrents, etc.

If a cop pulls you over, they tell you why. If the arrest you, they read you your rights and tell you what charge you're being arrested for.

This guy seems to be the kind who would throw you in jail first, think up a charge later, and get the whole case thrown out because of his incompetance.

Give the tendancy of law enforcement in the last few years to trample rights, I'd have felt a lot better reading a post that explained how everyone's right were protected as enforcement activity took place.

It burns me under the collar to think that when this future administrator of justice reaches the field, they may act as calivalier as their post implies.

 

[ReadyOne]

{snip}

“call me a terrorist”

{snip}

Search the New York times for an article which appeared before last Christmas (2003). It was reprinted in the Denver Post where I read it on Dec 27 (plus or minus a day).

It is a story about a kid (a true juvenile) who was tried in federal court charged with committing a terrorist act.

He received something like 30 months in jail.

His was one of a handful of juveniles that have ever appeared in a Federal court.

His guilty plea in common court was set aside so that he could be prosecuted in federal court.

His appearance in Federal court violated several items in the court's guidelines about hearing cases that involve juvies.

His crime? -- He set a fire, like several thousand other juvies do each year.

The connection between between him and terrorism? -- Fire is a weapon that a terrorist can use.

The difference between him and the other thousands arsonist kids? -- The fire burned part of a boat house that housed a craft belonging to former president Bush.


If they can call him a terrorist, they can call anybody a terrorist.

 

[ReadyOne]

OK people, which camp am I in?

One which contains the people trying to make a living?

The other which clearly sees no problem stealing their work?

---

Hints:

I've worked for the 4th largest hardware company in the world, and the 2nd largest software company in the world and replaced media at the drop of a hat with same day delivery to the other side of the country.

I've worked for a couple of companies near the bottom of the fortune 500, and replaced media at cost of materials and duplication.

I've worked for a software company so small it went broke in 9 months. They never had anything to put on media.

I've built content protection schemes and copy protection schemes for software sold on the shelves of thousands of stores. We flooded the market with media.

I've looked the other way when people acquired media for which they already had licenses, not challenging the legality of their actions.

I've registered my shareware.

I hate the RIAA.

I buy CDs at concerts.

I copy songs.

Sheath is mad at me.

Bobmi357 is mad at me

------

I'm not arguing for one of those sides or another.

My camp (and I seem to be the only one there) wants justice for all sides. The closest religion to this seems to be the open source software people.

Economic justice for all is obtainable only in theory, because any law or technology that can be used as a tool to achieve that can (and will) be used as a tool of economic oppression by those who control it.

Still I hope that a workable system will fall in place where artists get paid and people hear music, and where programmers can make new programs and users are free to operate them how and when and where they wish.

But I read history, and there is always a group that thinks others owe them a living, and that anything they choose to do is fair. Special interest are almost always ahead, until they get so greedy the public reacts with vehemence. Each fights fire with fire, and both sides fail to act in a way that preserves the interest of the other.

Is it too much to ask for both sides to take the moral high road?

Obviously so. I find each side trying to pillage the other. Neither does "the right thing".

 

[Bobmi357]

I'm not mad at you ReadyOne. I just don't see any sense in trying to justify what we all know is theft.

In the cases you describe, I will readily admit they are special circumstances and the companies should make provisions for replacing damaged media. That they don't is yet another reason to be annoyed with them. But this reason, as valid as it might be still fails to justify the rampant copying which we both know is happening on the net.

I'm small fry, not comparable at all with Microsoft or any of the large software companies. Companies like microsoft and RIAA can afford to throw lawyers around like peanuts at a circus whereas all I can do it grit my teeth in frustration.

Like yourself I buy my CD's. I have a few tapes copied off TV, and over 300 videos bought either new or used. All of the software on our workstations are either freeware or purchased (including big ticket items like photoshop). I don't like RIAA's heavy handed tactics, but I can see why they have chosen the route they took.

What bothers me about all this is people know that copying music or a program is against the law, and still they try to justify their actions as getting back at RIAA and the BIG music industry. My point throughout all of this thread is its NOT JUST RIAA thats involved. The program or music you just copied may belong to someone like myself, or to a struggling artist that is just trying to earn a living.

As to the issue of breaking into a computer. Well it was funny. I'm on a dialup, I'd love to see how long it would take you to download the contents of my harddrive. Odds are if you could get past the firewall, which I doubt, I'd still probably turn off the machine well before you completed your download.

Legally its still not as cut and dry as you might think. And while Joe Blow with his personal computer might not have much in the way of legal recourse, covertly breaking into a business machine is a federal offense which the FBI does take quite seriously. Then of course my lawyer would probably love the chance to run an Industrial Espionage case.

 

[living2serve]

First of all, I’ve NEVER had a case thrown out. Second of all, I'm NOT a man, and finally, as I have stated repeatedly, I could care less about your downloading. I have no intention of stomping on your rights, but do you really think the person whois loking for illegal downloaders isn't? And there is nothing stopping that person from handing that evidence over to the authorities for a legal warrent that you're so worried about and nailing your a**. So quit bitching at me like I'm the bad guy because your doing something illegal and bragging about it on a public forum and I'm simply trying to help your dumb a** by telling you to shut up about it!! Speaking of constitutional rights, what about the constitutional rights of the people you are stealing from, particularly the ones we have heard from in this forum that are just starting out, trying to make ends meet? Oh, I forgot, you're only concerned with YOUR constitutional rights, when you’re infringing on someone else’s, screw them, right? You have me pegged way wrong dude, but I am not going to continue to argue with someone as narrow minded as you. When you do get nailed, give me a buzz and I'll drop you a few laws to help you out, because I obviously am the bigger person in this.

 

[sheath]

Legally its still not as cut and dry as you might think. And while Joe Blow with his personal computer might not have much in the way of legal recourse, covertly breaking into a business machine is a federal offense which the FBI does take quite seriously. Then of course my lawyer would probably love the chance to run an Industrial Espionage case.

Bobmi...with all due respect. Like Ready One, you usually have very good points, as you do throughout all of this thread. However, resorting to shots like this undermines all that GOOD things you have to say. You have quite a bit of credibility on this issue, and we all know it. But given the tone of this thread and the way things are deteriorating, your valid opinions might get blown off by writing something like the above quote.

You have something valuable to contribute here. Please keep doing that.

S.

 

[Bobmi357]

Bobmi...with all due respect. Like Ready One, you usually have very good points, as you do throughout all of this thread. However, resorting to shots like this undermines all that GOOD things you have to say. You have quite a bit of credibility on this issue, and we all know it. But given the tone of this thread and the way things are deteriorating, your valid opinions might get blown off by writing something like the above quote.

You have something valuable to contribute here. Please keep doing that.

S.

Sheath,
Forgive me if you think I was making a personal attack, but I wasn't. I have looked into filing charges on someone attempting to break into computers here in my office. The federal government does consider hacking into a computer to be a crime, but they are only interested if you can prove a minimum of $5000.00 in damages. Fortunately or unfortunately the individual in question never made it past the fire wall and therefore I really couldn't claim any damages were incurred (other than loss of bandwidth).

My comments were directed at the individual claiming they could break into any computer. And while I don't doubt for a second that our government has broken into computers without any sort of court approval, this probably falls under the illegal search and seizure laws. And if that should happen, the network activity should be a clear warning to people that something isn't right. Even with a DSL connection it would take quite some time for someone to download an entire hard disk.

Additionally I have trouble seeing how such an operation can be accomplished without first somehow tricking your target into loading a client application on the system capable of communicating with his or her computer.

Needless to say this isn't something I'd want to try on someone. Getting caught at it can seriously mess up your life if your mark decides to invoke their legal options.

 

[sultresweetie]

We could go on forever about what's right or wrong, and a few of you uptight assholes can continue to waste your time threatening, twisting words, and antagonizing people, but in the end it doesn't mean shit. How many millions of songs do you think are being traded at this moment on any one of the many shareware sites?
Untwist your panties and get real. Technology is marching on, and home media is stumbling along with it. CD storage of PURCHASED music is archaic-it has been for YEARS. I wonder what the public opinion in this debate is like in other countries? I know that the US is always at least 5 years behind Europe and Asia in technology. I wonder if they Shake their head at the obvious desperation, as well.
If the RIAA by some small, incredibly impossible chance stumbles on this thread, and wants to bust me for admitting to a criminal activity and sue me for my compilation of 80's greatest hits music (LOL), then SO BE IT. It won't change shit-I'll just be another casualty of a system in desperation to catch up with technology. They will have a hard time trying to figure out which songs I DLed to complete my collection, amongst the 1000's of songs that I copied from my CD collection in order to PRESERVE my investment. I don't even want to think of the thousands of dollars lost on the vulnerability of the CD media I purchased. I hope the RIAA and the judicial system has also invested in a special device to squeeze money out of my broke ass, too! Maybe, they can buy back all these CDs I have laying around taking up space and collecting dust...lol.

Furthermore, if I think country music sucks, it doesn't mean that I'm forcing everyone else to think that country music sucks. It doesn't mean that I don't understand music and need some internet jerk-off to explain it to me. I grew up in the COUNTRY, with nothing but COUNTRY MUSIC and all the mentality, culture, and attire it has come to symbolize, and guess what? Being who I am and knowing what I'm not, I really can't stand the shit. Bully, for you if you do! I know a lot of people that can't stand my punk music-doesn't hurt my fucking feelings! It is MY OPINION, you don't have to agree and frankly, I don't give a fuck if you do or not! Just like it's my OPINION that someone who PURCHASES music, and then chooses to share it with me does not make me a thief. Time will be the deciding factor in the MP3 sharing debate. Just like with any other moral issue. Don't ya'll think it's about time to climb off the soapbox?
Christ.

 

[sultresweetie]

OK people, which camp am I in?

One which contains the people trying to make a living?

The other which clearly sees no problem stealing their work?

---

Hints:

I've worked for the 4th largest hardware company in the world, and the 2nd largest software company in the world and replaced media at the drop of a hat with same day delivery to the other side of the country.

I've worked for a couple of companies near the bottom of the fortune 500, and replaced media at cost of materials and duplication.

I've worked for a software company so small it went broke in 9 months. They never had anything to put on media.

I've built content protection schemes and copy protection schemes for software sold on the shelves of thousands of stores. We flooded the market with media.

I've looked the other way when people acquired media for which they already had licenses, not challenging the legality of their actions.

I've registered my shareware.

I hate the RIAA.

I buy CDs at concerts.

I copy songs.

Sheath is mad at me.

Bobmi357 is mad at me

------

I'm not arguing for one of those sides or another.

My camp (and I seem to be the only one there) wants justice for all sides. The closest religion to this seems to be the open source software people.

Economic justice for all is obtainable only in theory, because any law or technology that can be used as a tool to achieve that can (and will) be used as a tool of economic oppression by those who control it.

Still I hope that a workable system will fall in place where artists get paid and people hear music, and where programmers can make new programs and users are free to operate them how and when and where they wish.

But I read history, and there is always a group that thinks others owe them a living, and that anything they choose to do is fair. Special interest are almost always ahead, until they get so greedy the public reacts with vehemence. Each fights fire with fire, and both sides fail to act in a way that preserves the interest of the other.

Is it too much to ask for both sides to take the moral high road?

Obviously so. I find each side trying to pillage the other. Neither does "the right thing".

This is why I love you, ReadyOne!