New
#30
All based on the delusion that something which can be readily copied with no effort has any real value to begin with.
Studios crushed: ISP can't be forced to play copyright
-
-
New #31
Cornell Law University said:
So unless I am the only one that took a high school government class (or am taking), I am pretty sure that is intended to mean that you should own a gun as part of a regulated militia. A.k.a. The Nation Guard
Most people don't know the whole amendment, nor realize that.
~Lordbob
-
New #32
LB, your interpretation is one of three types since 2nd Amendment cases have been heard in courts. But there has never been a comprehensive, federal gun ban in the history of the country. A couple years ago, the SCOTUS put an end to the debate on the federal level, saying a private citizen indeed has a right to own a gun. Another major decision is coming this term deals with state and local laws.
By the way, what does any of this Australian ISP stuff has to do with US gun laws?
-
New #33
Thank you Colonel, I was hoping someone would bring this back to the main subject.
Again I posted this thread to get the feelings of what people were thinking when it came to some of the judicial decisions of late against the Movie and Music Media. Also, this is not just about one country; these decisions are in reality important to all countries because it allows those being sued by the entertainment community to use those decisions to backup their claim that what is happening, or what the entertainment people are saying is not always based in fact.
Also, it is to get a feeling as to how people look at the IP community, and their role in this never ending battle. The key is whether or not they should take an active role in stopping illegal downloads as part of their everyday activities.
-
New #34
Hi Lee
Stopping (or attempting to stop) the activity isn't really the point here.
I think the main point the OP was making was questioning the METHODS used in attempting to stop the alleged illegal activity.
Of course "Intellectual Property" has rights belonging to the owners and they are allowed to attempt to protect their rights but using the Courts to try and get the FACILITATORS held responsible rather then the PREPETRATORS opens a really nasty can of worms --essentially giving carte blanche to "The End Justifies the Means".
The business models of these types of businesses in the digital age are currently highly flawed and using essentially "20th Century" legislation and methods to solve a 21st century problem won't result in a solution to this problem.
By embracing the digital age and not making it almost impossible for people to download and play content WHENEVER AND WHEREVER they wish would solve a HUGE amount of piracy -- of course not all -- and allow the businesses to concentrate on comabting large scale commercial piracy - the proceeds of which are used in funding a lot of other highly undesirable activities too.
Cheers
jimbo
-
New #35
I think its very questionable when Nintendo can follow the law and receive a good outcome but AFACT and the Music/Movie industry cannot and somehow think they can bypass the legal process.
Australian Nintendo pirate to pay $1.5m
-
New #36
The USA should not be forcing their laws onto other countries anyway. Oh wait a minute there is money involved, I'm surprised they haven't started sending tanks in to Sweden(watch out for friendly fire).
Bullies.
-
New #37
I'm in no way advocating piracy. My problem is with the claims of revenu loss. Look at how much money Avatar gernerated and is continuing to and hasn't even gone to DVD yet. They could help eliminate a portion of piracy by selling the DVD at a reduced cost.They could achive this by not spending all the money they do on Lawyers, Copy Protetion ( which doesn't work anyway), Lobyists and Law enforcement singeling out a housewife from Ohio. I guess I'm just a person who wonders how much money is enough. And to target the average Joe verus the real pirates is ludicrist. They know where the majority of the hard copied products come from. I guess I'm just trying to say their has to be a better way, than to create more goverment involment in our lives. Fabe
-
New #38
I agree Fabe
-
New #39
Hi Fabe
Yes of course you are correct -- and also people should be rewarded for their work ("Intellectual Property").
What we are questioning here is in the use of outdated and "dubious" use of "anti-terrorism" type legislation to enforce protection rather than trying to get the the companies concerned to adapt their business models to one more appropriate with the digital age.
Instead of hounding individual downloaders - they really need to concentrate on supressing Commercial Piracy which IS big business.
There is absolutely NO reason why they couldn't have made AVATAR for example immediately downloadable on release for a SMALL fee -- many many people do not have the time or inclination to see the movie in a Movie theater for all sorts of LEGITIMATE reasons but would certainly be willing to pay a sensible amount for a download (in full HD as well - not typical web quality that's not very good on a large HD TV set).
People won't stop going to movies -even if the downloads were legally available.
You have LIVE TV Premiership football in the UK and elsewhere -- plenty of people still go to the Stadia and I'm sure in the USA there weren't many empty seats at the Super Bowl even though the game was also televised live.
No amount of encryption or DRM is going to stop people downloading -- just find a LEGAL and FAIRLY PRICED way of allowing them to do it and concentrate on the COMMERCIAL Pirates who are a much worse problem.
Cheers
jimbo
Quote
Related Discussions