OK - let's call it what it is.
Let's call the speed limit what it is as well.
Because that's a 'law' - as I understand it - and of course, we're all law abiding citizens - and no-one breaks the law.
I understand your definition of stealing - but as I see it - there is a difference. And you might all insist that it's splitting hairs, but if we can't even agree on the language, then it's a pointless argument. Again - the OTT language that is used by NZFACT and the industry here in NZ basically says, if you use p2p technology - YOU WILL DIE FROM A HORRIBLE DISEASE AND YOUR CHILDREN'S CHILDREN WILL BE CURSED.
It's bullshit, and excessive, and ignores the reality.
You might say it's all faux-intellectual claptrap, but it strikes me that many of us break the law constantly, and we don't all get locked up or penalised for it. How many have been to Asia and bought a pair of cheap Diesel jeans? Or cheap Adidas? Or made a copy of the CD that you've bought and paid for - for the iPod? What's the difference between the copy of Lost on your Tivo - or the copy of Lost that you recorded to VHS? Sung Happy Birthday? Yes -
Warner Music own the rights to that one too.
These cases are being argued on the basis of intellectual and copyright law - and the RIAA/MPAA is rampantly screwing people, without any regard for fair use, or any grasp of reality. The new Section 92A of NZ law will be impossible to police or credibly maintain - ISP's are in a lose-lose situation. They can be sued by big business who say they are allowing copyright infringement, and they can be sued by terminated clients, for not having the proof of said infringement. Because the NZ law is based on "accusation of guilt".
This
case is indicative. And the fact that the RIAA opposed the case being streamed on the net - seems to me like a case of "cake" and "choking on it". But they might win -
some of the people trying to argue the case - are
just getting out. For reasons like this:
Quote:
2. The Current State of Copyright Law is too depressing
This leads me tomy final reason for closing the blog which is independent of the first reason: my fear that the blog was becoming too negative in tone. I regard myself as a centrist. I believe very much that in proper doses copyright is essential for certain classes of works, especially commercial movies, commercial sound recordings, and commercial books, the core copyright industries. I accept that the level of proper doses will vary from person to person and that my recommended dose may be lower (or higher) than others. But in my view, and that of my cherished brother Sir Hugh Laddie, we are well past the healthy dose stage and into the serious illness stage. Much like the U.S. economy, things are getting worse, not better. Copyright law has abandoned its reason for being: to encourage learning and the creation of new works. Instead, its principal functions now are to preserve existing failed business models, to suppress new business models and technologies, and to obtain, if possible, enormous windfall profits from activity that not only causes no harm, but which is beneficial to copyright owners. Like Humpty-Dumpty, the copyright law we used to know can never be put back together again: multilateral and trade agreements have ensured that, and quite deliberately.
|
I'm all for artists being compensated fairly - but the film industry pisses me off for treating me like a criminal and insulting my intelligence by showing their shit "You wouldn't steal a purse. DON'T DOWNLOAD" - at the start of a movie, I've paid for, and a DVD I've paid for. We are getting to the point where the anti-piracy ads will be
.
Anyone else see the irony in an industry that attacks the technology for destroying their livelihoods - then uses that technology to show us
.
The
Warner Music Group and Youtube split has caused some interesting
and
and
. It really is a bit shit when
anymore. Yes, yes, I understand it's been published in an online environment... but good god, talk about how to alienate and piss off the very people you want to purchase your product.