Planetarion Forums

s|k · 13 Mar 2006, 18:34

I will no longer condem people for file sharing. The MPAA and the RIAA are wrong: the fear mongering and the lies they spread are terrible. These wealthy organizations with their high priced lawyers destroy the lives of everyday folk with families for running torrent sites that only lose money.

I had never supported these activities, it was only a moral question I was taking sides on, but I've changed my mind. Because of the activities of these 'associations', absolutly base on all levels, I've made this decision. All I see is rich people on one side of the court taking money away from poor, mostly honest people on the other side. I don't believe laws were written to support this kind of thievery.

I think I will just cease to buy any more music or pay for anymore movies. I wont file share either. I'll read books or something. I don't think I could even enjoy the entertainment anymore, knowing what bastards populate the industry.

Deepflow · 13 Mar 2006, 18:35

Quote:

Originally Posted by s|k

I think I will just cease to buy any more music or pay for anymore movies. I wont file share either. I'll read books or something. I don't think I could even enjoy the entertainment anymore, knowing what bastards populate the industry.

This paragraph is lol

Yahwe · 13 Mar 2006, 18:37

Quote:

Originally Posted by s|k

All I see is rich people on one side of the court taking money away from poor, mostly honest people on the other side. I don't believe laws were written to support this kind of thievery.

'mostly honest'?

and is this a rant because you've not yet taken your medication or a rant because a particular event has occured. if the latter please supply link.

s|k · 13 Mar 2006, 18:42

Take for instance these people here:
http://www.niteshdw.com/index.php?a=topic&t=7284
A man with a wife and daughter ruined (or about to be) by the MPAA for running a losing money site distributing only torrents. He's asking for donations for legal fees and I think two people have donated $10 each.

How about these letters from the content industries:
http://thepiratebay.org/legal.php
Look how vicious and mean they are.

Then take into account this site here:
http://www.mpaa.org/piracy_internet.asp

Look how they make it out to be to be out for your interest when it's greed that motivates them. Look at their lies. It's so deceptive and underhanded. I don't believe half of what they say.

Kurashima · 13 Mar 2006, 18:50

Its widely accepted theyre not doing it for the high moral reasons they state, but because their clients arent making enough money for their shareholders.

Capitalism - An experiment in wealth management thats destroyed the faith of most people in human nature.

Yahwe · 13 Mar 2006, 19:36

There is no law designed to allow innocent people to be 'bullied' in the emotive way that you are suggesting.

The man who broke the law and run a torrent site ruined himself. It is fatuous to suggest that the MPAA are somehow to blame.

Sending out letters to these sites letters detailing valid legal complaints serve to warn the offender and give him an opportunity to cease his activities thereby avoiding being sued. That actually seems quite a morally correct thing to do ...

Androme · 13 Mar 2006, 19:52

The MPAA should try to use the technology for the good of the companies it represents rather than just sue and neglect the technology. It's so popular not only because it's free but the P2P and torrent system works - simple. What do these companies have compared to this? Nothing.

Nodrog · 13 Mar 2006, 20:01

Why do you support filesharing involving non-RIAA artists? Arent you essentially saying that because you dont like the RIAA, its ok to steal from all artists regardless of whether they are RIAA or not? You remind me of someone who thinks that all Jews are secretly rich and attend Jewmeetings where world domination is discussed, just because a moneylender once charged him too much interest on his loan.

Nodrog · 13 Mar 2006, 20:04

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kurashima

Its widely accepted theyre not doing it for the high moral reasons they state, but because their clients arent making enough money for their shareholders.

Capitalism - An experiment in wealth management thats destroyed the faith of most people in human nature.

Hows the bank job going, Mr Principles?

Kurashima · 13 Mar 2006, 20:05

Quote:

Originally Posted by Androme2

The MPAA should try to use the technology for the good of the companies it represents rather than just sue and neglect the technology. It's so popular not only because it's free but the P2P and torrent system works - simple. What do these companies have compared to this? Nothing.

Thats not strictly speaking true.

The code behind a lot of the original P2P companies now belongs to major record companies, and they use this for their own download websites.

True, it doesnt allow Peer to Peer sharing of software, but FTP's been around as long as Dead_Meat, and it allows the sharing of files with the right privileges and passwords.

The torrent system is a brilliant little piece of code, and what it does is something really useful which could, in theory, be coded into the websites of the large online companies.

It wont be at the moment as theyve got no need for it. As and when they find something its useful for, expect them to speak to the authors and negotiate licenses.

Kurashima · 13 Mar 2006, 20:08

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nodrog

Hows the bank job going, Mr Principles?

Youre about 300 million lightyears behind the rest of the world Mr Don.

http://pirate.planetarion.com/showpo...62&postcount=9

http://pirate.planetarion.com/showth...&highlight=job

Androme · 13 Mar 2006, 20:58

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nodrog

its ok to steal from all artists

It is? If Nodrog says it is then it is.

But seriously, what I am supposedly stealing isn't tangible so I see no harm in it AND I am getting the word of the artists I listen to around because I have it in my MSN Currently playing feature, playlists etc. This means I am essentially advertising FOR FREE their music - if someone gull'ble... honest wishes to buy their music based on my influence, then I should be entitled to some money back as I've refered.

They're stealing my time in that context and getting money for free.

Dante Hicks · 13 Mar 2006, 21:01

Quote:

Originally Posted by Yahwe

Sending out letters to these sites letters detailing valid legal complaints serve to warn the offender and give him an opportunity to cease his activities thereby avoiding being sued. That actually seems quite a morally correct thing to do ...

The problem is they are sending letters citing laws which do not apply in the countries they are sending them. In other cases they are sending letters out in an entirely automated fashion - there was an instance where a Professor was hosting some (entirely legal) MP3s but because he had 'Usher' in his name he received a Cease and Desist notice.

s|k · 13 Mar 2006, 21:06

Quote:

Originally Posted by Yahwe

There is no law designed to allow innocent people to be 'bullied' in the emotive way that you are suggesting.

The man who broke the law and run a torrent site ruined himself. It is fatuous to suggest that the MPAA are somehow to blame.

Sending out letters to these sites letters detailing valid legal complaints serve to warn the offender and give him an opportunity to cease his activities thereby avoiding being sued. That actually seems quite a morally correct thing to do ...

Don't you think there's some kind of massive injustice taking place when the wealthy and powerful use the public court system to ruin small people who were not profiting from their activities, activities that have shown no clear evidence for causing a loss in profits? It's not right.

Yahwe · 13 Mar 2006, 21:10

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dante Hicks

The problem is they are sending letters citing laws which do not apply in the countries they are sending them. In other cases they are sending letters out in an entirely automated fashion - there was an instance where a Professor was hosting some (entirely legal) MP3s but because he had 'Usher' in his name he received a Cease and Desist notice.

Well firstly the laws will apply in those other countries. That's what we have extradition and sovereignty for.

Secondly I see no great harm done to people such as your professor: it's no different from recieving tv licence letters. However if the company ever crossed the line and started harrassing an innocent individual then there are other laws to protect that individual.

Yahwe · 13 Mar 2006, 21:11

Quote:

Originally Posted by s|k

Don't you think there's some kind of massive injustice taking place when the wealthy and powerful use the public court system to ruin small people who were not profiting from their activities, activities that have shown no clear evidence for causing a loss in profits? It's not right.

this is like saying "it's worse for a poor person to get stabbed than it is for a rich person to get stabbed".

The companies are fully entitled to make use of the law. Just like everyone else.

Alessio · 13 Mar 2006, 21:25

Thank god for reasonable Dutch laws

Dante Hicks · 13 Mar 2006, 21:26

Quote:

Originally Posted by Yahwe

Well firstly the laws will apply in those other countries. That's what we have extradition and sovereignty for.

So the US DMCA applies in countries where no such equivalent legislation applies? So if a Swede uploads files to a fellow Swede he should be threatened by laws his country does not have? If that is the legal position then it is frankly absurd. Not that I'm overly bothered on what the idiots in our legislature do, laws like this will simply be defied by anyone remotely cool.

Quote:

Secondly I see no great harm done to people such as your professor: it's no different from recieving tv licence letters.

I personally find the TV licence letters disgusting too. There may not be any "great harm" done but this hardly excuses the practice.

Quote:

this is like saying "it's worse for a poor person to get stabbed than it is for a rich person to get stabbed".

Anyway, back to s|k's point although I am semi-glad he has turned away from continuous justifying corporate sponsored laws I feel he misses the point somewhat. More directly I personally welcome every idiotic move by the *AA's and their ilk - they are simply confirming their eventual obsolescence. Dinosaur's will die, as the song goes.

s|k · 13 Mar 2006, 21:28

Quote:

Originally Posted by Yahwe

this is like saying "it's worse for a poor person to get stabbed than it is for a rich person to get stabbed".

The companies are fully entitled to make use of the law. Just like everyone else.

I think the equality that you assume to exist between wealthy and poor in regards to employing the law doesn't exist in reality. The laws aren't fair to begin with.

It might all work out nice and clean on paper, but I know when someone is getting ****ed. How often do you see powerless people ruining the wealthy?

Yahwe · 13 Mar 2006, 21:34

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dante Hicks

So the US DMCA applies in countries where no such equivalent legislation applies? So if a Swede uploads files to a fellow Swede he should be threatened by laws his country does not have? If that is the legal position then it is frankly absurd. Not that I'm overly bothered on what the idiots in our legislature do, laws like this will simply be defied by anyone remotely cool.

The principle of legal sovereignty and extradition apply to all laws and all nations.

If country A has no law against murder, but country B does, country B's murder law will apply (even though getting that application into practical effect requires diplomatic negotiation and extradition.)

Legal Sovereignty might very well appear absurd to you but curiously it is a concept adhered to by all nation states.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dante Hicks

I personally find the TV licence letters disgusting too. There may not be any "great harm" done but this hardly excuses the practice

They're entitled to act reasonably in order to uphold their legal rights is the point. Your disgust is just subjective irrelevance.

Yahwe · 13 Mar 2006, 21:36

Quote:

Originally Posted by s|k

I think the equality that you assume to exist between wealthy and poor in regards to employing the law doesn't exist in reality. The laws aren't fair to begin with.

It might all work out nice and clean on paper, but I know when someone is getting ****ed. How often do you see powerless people ruining the wealthy?

your personal beliefs do not concern me.

s|k · 13 Mar 2006, 21:37

Quote:

Originally Posted by Yahwe

They're entitled to act reasonably in order to uphold their legal rights is the point. Your disgust is just subjective irrelevance.

They're not acting reasonably. Obviously I'm powerless to stop any of this, but I'm certainly not going to give any more money to these fiends.

MrL_JaKiri · 13 Mar 2006, 21:45

Quote:

Originally Posted by Yahwe

The principle of legal sovereignty and extradition apply to all laws and all nations.

Obviously countries only have extradition treaties because they like the word.

The Real Arfy · 13 Mar 2006, 21:48

Quote:

Originally Posted by s|k

I will no longer condem people for file sharing. The MPAA and the RIAA are wrong: the fear mongering and the lies they spread are terrible. These wealthy organizations with their high priced lawyers destroy the lives of everyday folk with families for running torrent sites that only lose money.

I had never supported these activities, it was only a moral question I was taking sides on, but I've changed my mind. Because of the activities of these 'associations', absolutly base on all levels, I've made this decision. All I see is rich people on one side of the court taking money away from poor, mostly honest people on the other side. I don't believe laws were written to support this kind of thievery.

I think I will just cease to buy any more music or pay for anymore movies. I wont file share either. I'll read books or something. I don't think I could even enjoy the entertainment anymore, knowing what bastards populate the industry.

Its still a crime, however little profit they make.

If I were to mug somebody due to being poor and then in turn get mugged myself, am I suddenly not guilty of a crime?

Dante Hicks · 13 Mar 2006, 21:51

Quote:

Originally Posted by Yahwe

Your disgust is just subjective irrelevance.

Not when we're discussing personal (moral/political) beliefs.

Kurashima · 13 Mar 2006, 21:52

Quote:

Originally Posted by Yahwe

The principle of legal sovereignty and extradition apply to all laws and all nations.

If country A has no law against murder, but country B does, country B's murder law will apply (even though getting that application into practical effect requires diplomatic negotiation and extradition.)

Legal Sovereignty might very well appear absurd to you but curiously it is a concept adhered to by all nation states.

I have to admit to being just a little curious here.

If nation A has a law against murder, and the person committing the murder commits it in Nation B against an individual from nation A, why is nation A entitled to extradite that person for a crime against their national? Why isnt he tried under Nation B's judicial system?

Just putting S|K's point a little better.

Its why the american judicial system is so roundly mocked. Offences committed overseas against their nation can be tried in US courts (in absentia civil cases against Osama Bin Laden being the example). Thats absoloutely ludicrous. I dont recall seeing Britain at any point attempting to extradite the turk who killed a 2yr old in his pram simply because the victim was a british national. If anything, I recall the parents having to fight for justice in turkey because the UK government simply werent interested in an offence committed against their national on foreign soil.

The law may well be there for a reason, and may be important for the purposes of extradition against individuals who commit and offence and then flee overseas, but as S|K rightly points out , if a Swede sends a file to a fellow Swede, and the data passed remains within the Cyberspace of Scandanvia , why is it that hes not prosecuted under Swedish copyright laws?

Yahwe · 13 Mar 2006, 21:53

Quote:

Originally Posted by MrL_JaKiri

Obviously countries only have extradition treaties because they like the word.

actually they have extradition treaties in order to speed up the process of extradition and to create and standardise the process.

In future when you think i've made a mistake mark can you please just say so? I'm getting annoyed with this condescending 'i'll just post an offend remark' approach you have been adopting. It's particularly annoying when you are in fact wrong.

Yahwe · 13 Mar 2006, 21:55

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dante Hicks

Not when we're discussing personal (moral/political) beliefs.

a) I wasn't
b) You can't discuss beliefs. You can only state them.

Dante Hicks · 13 Mar 2006, 21:56

Quote:

Originally Posted by Yahwe

I'm getting annoyed with this condescending 'i'll just post an offend remark' approach you have been adopting.

This sentence amused me on a number of levels.

s|k · 13 Mar 2006, 21:57

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Real Arfy

Its still a crime, however little profit they make.

If I were to mug somebody due to being poor and then in turn get mugged myself, am I suddenly not guilty of a crime?

You obviously don't understand the concept of 'fair use.' It's an exception to copyright law that excludes copyright privileges based on the following criteria:

Quote:

1. the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes;
2. the nature of the copyrighted work;
3. amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and
4. the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work.

http://www.copyright.gov/fls/fl102.html

Profit does matter, and sharing isn't mugging.

Dante Hicks · 13 Mar 2006, 21:59

Quote:

Originally Posted by Yahwe

a) I wasn't

Yes, but I was. This is fun isn't it.

Quote:

b) You can't discuss beliefs. You can only state them.

I disagree. You can discuss the origin of your beliefs, how they logically (or otherwise) are (in)consistent with other beliefs you may hold, how you feel these beliefs affect your behaviour, how they might be applied practically and so on. You may feel such pursuits are tedious/irrelevant/whatever but it takes all sorts.

Alessio · 13 Mar 2006, 22:02

Quote:

Originally Posted by s|k

All I see is rich people on one side of the court taking money away from poor, mostly honest people on the other side. I don't believe laws were written to support this kind of thievery.

You sound like you can only keep the rights of your product until you get rich or something

Besides they NEED to sue those people to keep piracy from getting out of hand
You know they can't support it, for the sake of their own branch

s|k · 13 Mar 2006, 22:02

Quote:

Originally Posted by Yahwe

b) You can't discuss beliefs. You can only state them.

What? You can discuss anything.

lokken · 13 Mar 2006, 22:08

There are people smoking in the streets of paris right now backing Yahwe's point about jurisdiction.

s|k · 13 Mar 2006, 22:09

Quote:

Originally Posted by Alessio

You sound like you can only keep the rights of your product until you get rich or something

Besides they NEED to sue those people to keep piracy from getting out of hand
You know they can't support it, for the sake of their own branch

No, I disagree, I think you should only get to defend your copyrights only to the point of absurdity, and not beyond that point. Copyright protection doesn't take precedence over the welfare of a person's life. It's not that important. Forcing someone to stop a service because of copyright violation is fine with me. Destroying an individual's life in order to make an example out of him because of activities that are conceivably victimless and without consequence is despicable, especially when it's perpetrated by an entity that seeks to deceive the public with it's misinformation and misinterpretation of law posted all over its website. That kind of fear mongering ought to be illegal.

Kurashima · 13 Mar 2006, 22:17

Quote:

Originally Posted by s|k

No, I disagree, I think you should only get to defend your copyrights only to the point of absurdity, and not beyond that point. Copyright protection doesn't take precedence over the welfare of a person's life. It's not that important. Forcing someone to stop a service because of copyright violation is fine with me. Destroying an individual's life in order to make an example out of him because of activities that are conceivably victimless and without consequence is despicable, especially when it's perpetrated by an entity that seeks to deceive the public with it's misinformation and misinterpretation of law posted all over its website. That kind of fear mongering ought to be illegal.

See "Mortgage" "Equity Release Loan" "Endowment Policy" "Life Insurance" etc etc.

Happens every day. Difference is that Banks fear reputational loss, and their ombudsman can impose stupidly large fines on institutions that take their greed too far.

The RIAA and the MPAA have absoloutely nobody to tell them what to do, and they dont care about reputation. That scares me. It scares me that they can find a copied movie on a DVD in my house and fine me £5000 for the privilege.

Per DVD

And the money will go to ... their shareholders (The Artists represented by the RIAA). How many other companies with shareholders can do this and get the protection of the law?

Last I recall of anything like this was the Lloyds of London "Names" fiasco.

Alessio · 13 Mar 2006, 22:23

Quote:

Originally Posted by s|k

No, I disagree, I think you should only get to defend your copyrights only to the point of absurdity, and not beyond that point. Copyright protection doesn't take precedence over the welfare of a person's life. It's not that important. Forcing someone to stop a service because of copyright violation is fine with me. Destroying an individual's life in order to make an example out of him because of activities that are conceivably victimless and without consequence is despicable,

If they would upload crappy music the damage would be less, and the claims would be smaller
If you make a retarded site of which you know that it's against the law and affect a million dollar businesses with
Then you gotta live with the consequences
Don't break products you can't afford

IF I burn a ferrari, then it's fairly obvious the claim is gonna be higher then when I burn a volvo
It's worth more

What your saying is that if your property is worth more then that bum that steals it can afford that you should just take the loss.
I'm quite against that

Quote:

especially when it's perpetrated by an entity that seeks to deceive the public with it's misinformation and misinterpretation of law posted all over its website. Lies and fear mongering ought to be illegal.

Person A has more rights then person B right

s|k · 13 Mar 2006, 22:28

Quote:

Originally Posted by Alessio

If they would upload crappy music the damage would be less, and the claims would be smaller
If you make a retarded site of which you know that it's against the law and affect a million dollar businesses with
Then you gotta live with the consequences
Don't break products you can't afford

IF I burn a ferrari, then it's fairly obvious the claim is gonna be higher then when I burn a volvo
It's worth more

What your saying is that if your property is worth more then that bum that steals it can afford that you should just take the loss.
I'm quite against that

Person A has more rights then person B right

I'm not sure you've read anything I've said.

Yahwe · 13 Mar 2006, 22:29

Quote:

Originally Posted by s|k

I'm not sure you've read anything I've said.

I'm quite sure that he has. he just disagrees with you.

Therein lies the 'value' of discussing beliefs.

Alessio · 13 Mar 2006, 22:40

Quote:

Originally Posted by s|k

I'm not sure you've read anything I've said.

That is not my lacking

s|k · 13 Mar 2006, 22:41

Quote:

Originally Posted by Yahwe

I'm quite sure that he has. he just disagrees with you.

Therein lies the 'value' of discussing beliefs.

Can you not conceive of a situation in which you may feel that a person that you think is in the right is abused, despite that the abuse is within the law?

Sodomy is illegal in some states and cities in the US, and I'm sure at one point it wasn't favored in your part of the world. Do you adopt the same nonchalant attitude about the law when someone's life is ruined because of prosecution for sodomy? A city is allowed to write and enforce its laws right? What argument could you possibly have. I'm sure if you brought up personal beliefs in your defense, the judge and the DA would say 'those don't concern me.'

Alessio · 13 Mar 2006, 22:47

Quote:

Originally Posted by s|k

Can you not conceive of a situation in which you may feel that a person that you think is in the right is abused, despite that the abuse is within the law?

Sodomy is illegal in some states and cities in the US, and I'm sure at one point it wasn't favored in your part of the world. Do you adopt the same nonchalant attitude about the law when someone's life is ruined because of prosecution for sodomy? A city is allowed to write and enforce its laws right? What argument could you possibly have. I'm sure if you brought up personal beliefs in your defense, the judge and the DA would say 'those don't concern me.'

That's the price you pay for equal rights

Ramihyn · 13 Mar 2006, 22:52

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dante Hicks

In other cases they are sending letters out in an entirely automated fashion - there was an instance where a Professor was hosting some (entirely legal) MP3s but because he had 'Usher' in his name he received a Cease and Desist notice.

We actually had a case like that in a demoscene music archive. They have(had?) crawlers running and doing substring scans inside archives and issue automatic warnings. Quite braindead and we had a good laugh.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Yahwe

The principle of legal sovereignty and extradition apply to all laws and all nations.

If country A has no law against murder, but country B does, country B's murder law will apply (even though getting that application into practical effect requires diplomatic negotiation and extradition.)

Im not sure what you are trying to say in your posts in this thread. There are indeed things like the Schengen convention but as you likely know not even all european countries signed it. However even the Schengen convention doesnt mean "the lowest common denominator of law" is active in every european country - its extend of law is limited. This has just been tested in case of a spanish extradition request towards germany about a crime which didnt exist in germany at the time the german "violated" it and the courts therefore refused to extradict the person on base of "predictability of legal decisions" which is a guaranteed right in germany. Note that this was about a crime related to terrorism and not some childplay like copying a mp3 file.

The DMCA which is active in the US doesnt bother me in germany or sweden. You can happily laugh at them for trying to apply US law on you - a whole different story is the fact that a DMCA alike law is still pending at the EU AFAIK. What CAN and likely WILL happen however, is that if you violate the US DMCA law on the internet by publification of research (thereby violating it virtually in the US), that the next time you travel to the US, you will be put in front of a court (Adobe/elcomsoft case).

Quote:

Originally Posted by Yahwe

They're entitled to act reasonably in order to uphold their legal rights is the point. Your disgust is just subjective irrelevance.

You keep making comments like that - basically saying "it doesnt matter if you think the law screws you" but for example in germany IT DOES matter. Undermining the general publics trust in the law system by "abusing" it is punishable by law. Though it may be very difficult to apply depending on the actual case.

Yahwe · 13 Mar 2006, 22:54

Quote:

Originally Posted by s|k

Sodomy is illegal in some states and cities in the US, and I'm sure at one point it wasn't favored in your part of the world. Do you adopt the same nonchalant attitude about the law when someone's life is ruined because of prosecution for sodomy? A city is allowed to write and enforce its laws right? What argument could you possibly have. I'm sure if you brought up personal beliefs in your defense, the judge and the DA would say 'those don't concern me.'

Yes they probably would say that and they'd be right.

It is perfectly possible for a law to be unjust: and therefore in need of being changed. The starting point I would take in assessing this question would be whether that law created 'unjust' results in all cases.

You see to prefer obsessing about one or two cases of percieved injustice and then working backward to conclude that the law is inherently wrong.

I would suggest that your approach is illogical and uses emotion to distort reality.

Ramihyn · 13 Mar 2006, 23:15

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kurashima

The RIAA and the MPAA have absoloutely nobody to tell them what to do, and they dont care about reputation. That scares me. It scares me that they can find a copied movie on a DVD in my house and fine me £5000 for the privilege.

They lose money due to it - i have been a very active buyer of commercial CDs but since they started to screw their customers over by trying to make it impossible to legally play their CDs in a computer or on a MP3 player and since they intentionally misrepresent the law in public to bully people, the money they get from me dropped from approx 500€ each year to a small fraction of that. AFAIK even executives of smaller music companies did quit their job out of disgust of beeing pressured into putting protections on any new release. There is a new label now explicitly stating that "this CD is NOT copyprotected". Actually people who still buy the CDs said that in germany the amount of copy protected audio-CDs has dropped a lot due to complaints and problems.

Currently the DVD industry starts to do the same - im renting a lot DVDs and have had increasing problems to play them (not to mention the hilarious "Mr. and Ms. Smith" german DVD protection case).

Androme · 13 Mar 2006, 23:24

The protection on CD's and DVD's aren't a concern to me. There are a lot of exploits out there on how to reverse them - some of them take time but alas, I don't mind especially with DVD's. DVD Decrypter seems to extract the main movie files I need after a rental with no hassle.

Flavius · 14 Mar 2006, 03:43

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ramihyn

They lose money due to it - i have been a very active buyer of commercial CDs but since they started to screw their customers over by trying to make it impossible to legally play their CDs in a computer or on a MP3 player and since they intentionally misrepresent the law in public to bully people, the money they get from me dropped from approx 500€ each year to a small fraction of that.

The problem is that they will blame file sharing as the cause of the drop in sales.

MrL_JaKiri · 14 Mar 2006, 10:05

Quote:

Originally Posted by Flavius

The problem is that they will blame file sharing as the cause of the drop in sales.

They blame filesharing for drops in sales when the amount of sales goes up, I don't think it's really that much of an issue.

Ramihyn · 14 Mar 2006, 10:39

Quote:

Originally Posted by Androme2

The protection on CD's and DVD's aren't a concern to me. There are a lot of exploits out there on how to reverse them - some of them take time but alas, I don't mind especially with DVD's. DVD Decrypter seems to extract the main movie files I need after a rental with no hassle.

That the protections are easy to "break" isnt the point. Many of them are so laughable that they dont even work on a linux machine with a SCSI cd/dvd drive. But due to intense lobbying it is a legal offence/crime now to "circumvent" these "copyright protections". To pay for an audio CD with the intent to go around the protection to put it on your MP3 player and thereby funding the people who make you a criminal for doing that, sounds very stupid to me.

Quote:

Originally Posted by MrL_JaKiri

They blame filesharing for drops in sales when the amount of sales goes up, I don't think it's really that much of an issue.

QFT.

Currently they HEAVILY lobby in germany to make sure there is no such thing like a "bagatelle"-clause in the upcoming next turn of copyright law increase. They want to make sure they can sue anybody for any single copy.