Disgusting !

Tefal · 6 Jan 2008 at 15:25

Hellsmk2 said:
I've read this sentence several times and I cannot translate it at all. It really hurts my brain.

He says that people that pirate stuff are thieves earlier on but now he says when he does it, it's not theft.

Tefal · 6 Jan 2008 at 15:27

Moses99p said:
Is it possible to have a poll asking if piracy is right or wrong?

seams like a yes or no question.

divine` · 6 Jan 2008 at 15:29

The thing that always makes me laugh about these debates is the probability that all those on their moral high horses have done it themselves at some point, be it ripping a borrowed CD (hell, ripping your own CDs isn't entirely legal) to watching a music video on YouTube that wasn't uploaded by the label etc.

mattyfez · 6 Jan 2008 at 15:30

Please just answer the question, yes, or no?

Ross1234 · 6 Jan 2008 at 15:30

no!

EDIT: yes

EDIT: no

EDIT: yes

EDIT: no

EDIT: yes

EDIT: no

edgedemon · 6 Jan 2008 at 15:31

gumbald said:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Razor_1911

Damn thats cool - their own wikipedia entry, must get me one of them....

Tefal · 6 Jan 2008 at 15:31

Moses99p said:
yeah, but I also mentioned how the questions were all gonna be quite ambiguous. I obviously didn't think of a very good question there, I thought one of our fine mods would do that for me ;D

have you pirated more than 24 songs?

If you have you owe RIAA Two hundred and twenty thousand dollars

Twelve jurors here said the Minnesota woman must pay $9,250 for each of 24 shared songs that were the subject of the lawsuit, amounting to $222,000 in penalties.

http://blog.wired.com/27bstroke6/2007/10/riaa-jury-finds.html

benjo plz. · 6 Jan 2008 at 15:37

Tefal said:
have you pirated more than 24 songs?

If you have you owe RIAA Two hundred and twenty thousand dollars

http://blog.wired.com/27bstroke6/2007/10/riaa-jury-finds.html

just a lil bit out of their jurisdiction lol.

Tefal · 6 Jan 2008 at 15:42

Phnom_Penh said:
just a lil bit out of their jurisdiction lol.

well He owes the RIAA some money anyway

but yes it is a good thing that we don't have putative fines here, but some of the things the judge ruled in that case where shocking, such as they didn't need to prove it was here that shared the songs or that she had file sharing software on here hard drive.

James07 · 6 Jan 2008 at 15:46

Blatent scam tbh..

Jet · 6 Jan 2008 at 16:06

mattyfez said:
What if you stole a song that you didnt like, songs cant be undownloaded, you have still commited a "crime"

Yeah, and one with no victim as well.

Tefal · 6 Jan 2008 at 16:14

Jet said:
Yeah, and one with no victim as well.

well he would have had to use an internet/tv/radio station or buy the song otherwise so cost someone revenue

fini · 6 Jan 2008 at 17:02

Tefal are you claiming your views are so extreme as to be above even the most punative governments in the world? I ask because you freely intermingle and merge the concept of theft with that of unauthorised digital reproduction. No country in the world (I've checked) brings such infringement under the title of 'theft'. This is probably because, in most countries, as in the UK, theft is defined as permanently materially depriving the owner of the use of said item - which you do not do with copyright infringement. Are you calling for the strictest laws in the world on copyright infringement; is your opinion so extreme so as to mark Britain out as the most punitive country, in this area, in the world?

Jet · 6 Jan 2008 at 17:09

Tefal said:
well he would have had to use an internet/tv/radio station or buy the song otherwise so cost someone revenue

I don't understand.

He pays for internet/TV, radio makes money from adverts based on number of listeners and he wouldn't have bought the song unless he had listened to it first. And since he didn't like it he wouldn't have bought it.

Or were you saying something else?

Tefal · 6 Jan 2008 at 18:00

Jet said:
I don't understand.

He pays for internet/TV, radio makes money from adverts based on number of listeners and he wouldn't have bought the song unless he had listened to it first. And since he didn't like it he wouldn't have bought it.

Or were you saying something else?

he down loaded it so the radio etc didn't benefit. sp it's not exactly victimless

Tefal · 6 Jan 2008 at 18:01

fini said:
Tefal are you claiming your views are so extreme as to be above even the most punative governments in the world? I ask because you freely intermingle and merge the concept of theft with that of unauthorised digital reproduction. No country in the world (I've checked) brings such infringement under the title of 'theft'. This is probably because, in most countries, as in the UK, theft is defined as permanently materially depriving the owner of the use of said item - which you do not do with copyright infringement. Are you calling for the strictest laws in the world on copyright infringement; is your opinion so extreme so as to mark Britain out as the most punitive country, in this area, in the world?

have you actually read my posts in this thread, i suggest you start at the beginning

Slam62 · 6 Jan 2008 at 18:01

hmm who pays for internet radio then

Tefal · 6 Jan 2008 at 18:02

Slam62 said:
hmm who pays for internet radio then

adverts and when the RIAA increased their royalty fees massively many stations had to close down as they could no longer afford to run. which strangely will cost the RIAA money on lost revenue.

Burnsy2023 · 6 Jan 2008 at 18:04

Slam62 said:
hmm who pays for internet radio then

Depends who the provider is, but it's the same as normal AM/FM radio.

Burnsy

Slam62 · 6 Jan 2008 at 18:06

So in the uk you have a TV license but this does not apply to radio?

So our taxes pay for the radio?