He says that people that pirate stuff are thieves earlier on but now he says when he does it, it's not theft.
Disgusting !
- Thread starter Dicehunter
- Start date
He says that people that pirate stuff are thieves earlier on but now he says when he does it, it's not theft.
seams like a yes or no question.
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.
Damn thats cool - their own wikipedia entry, must get me one of them....
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
Soldato
- Joined
- 15 Jan 2004
- Posts
- 14,199
- Location
- Hall
just a lil bit out of their jurisdiction lol.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
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.
Yeah, and one with no victim as well.
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?
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?
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.
Man of Honour
- Joined
- 17 Nov 2003
- Posts
- 36,747
- Location
- Southampton, UK