| Welcome to The New Coffee Room. We hope you enjoy your visit. You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free. Join our community! If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features: |
| Yet Another College Student Caught; In the Music Piracy Web | |
|---|---|
| Tweet Topic Started: May 13 2007, 01:06 PM (427 Views) | |
| QuirtEvans | May 13 2007, 01:06 PM Post #1 |
|
I Owe It All To John D'Oh
|
http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/technology..._r=1&oref=login |
| It would be unwise to underestimate what large groups of ill-informed people acting together can achieve. -- John D'Oh, January 14, 2010. | |
![]() |
|
| George K | May 13 2007, 01:12 PM Post #2 |
|
Finally
|
(here we go.....) Anyhow, have any of these cases actually gone to trial? My understanding is that the mere threat of the lawsuit causes people to cough up the cash to make it go away. |
|
A guide to GKSR: Click "Now look here, you Baltic gas passer... " - Mik, 6/14/08 Nothing is as effective as homeopathy. I'd rather listen to an hour of Abba than an hour of The Beatles. - Klaus, 4/29/18 | |
![]() |
|
| QuirtEvans | May 13 2007, 01:18 PM Post #3 |
|
I Owe It All To John D'Oh
|
Because the costs of losing a lawsuit would be dire indeed. (Although one wonders why an impoverished college student couldn't declare bankruptcy.) And, short of praying for jury nullification, one wonders how they'd hope to defend themselves. |
| It would be unwise to underestimate what large groups of ill-informed people acting together can achieve. -- John D'Oh, January 14, 2010. | |
![]() |
|
| Aqua Letifer | May 13 2007, 01:25 PM Post #4 |
|
ZOOOOOM!
|
The RIAA are goons, pure and simple. They don't at all care about combating the "problem" of music downloading. If they did, they'd be going after the individuals who have dedicated servers for file transfer. They'd be going after the p2p networks who knowingly house unlisenced material. But they're not. Scare tactics? You have to be kidding me. Has anyone heard of this curbing the numbers, even in the slightest? **** the RIAA. |
| I cite irreconcilable differences. | |
![]() |
|
| pianojerome | May 13 2007, 01:44 PM Post #5 |
|
HOLY CARP!!!
|
I got an e-mail a few months ago about 12 students at my school who were being sued. |
| Sam | |
![]() |
|
| ivorythumper | May 13 2007, 03:50 PM Post #6 |
|
I am so adjective that I verb nouns!
|
Seems like some could make a lot of money designing a program to prevent kids from downloading music and videos, and selling it to parents to protect them from liability. |
| The dogma lives loudly within me. | |
![]() |
|
| ny1911 | May 13 2007, 04:29 PM Post #7 |
![]()
Senior Carp
|
Now that's a good idea, IT.
|
|
So live your life and live it well. There's not much left of me to tell. I just got back up each time I fell. | |
![]() |
|
| pianojerome | May 13 2007, 05:22 PM Post #8 |
|
HOLY CARP!!!
|
And then someone could publish a way for kids to disable it. |
| Sam | |
![]() |
|
| Riley | May 13 2007, 07:29 PM Post #9 |
|
HOLY CARP!!!
|
That's ridiculous. First off, the parents are doing it too in many instances. Parents can just say "Don't download music" if they have a problem with it. If the kids disobey, they could be punished, just like with any other broken rule. But a program blocking p2p programs and the like is absurd. Seems to me like ordering weekly urine tests of your children, with no probable cause. Add to that, the fact that your chances of getting caught are virtually zero, it is like purchasing insurance protecting you from getting struck by lightning. Now, I'm not saying downloading pirated music should be allowed, but what you are suggesting is not the right solution, nor is it a very good one. |
![]() |
|
| ny1911 | May 14 2007, 02:33 AM Post #10 |
![]()
Senior Carp
|
I think it is, especially if I'm the one paying for the computer and the internet service. Of course it is better to have a child that knows the difference between right and wrong. |
|
So live your life and live it well. There's not much left of me to tell. I just got back up each time I fell. | |
![]() |
|
| Aqua Letifer | May 14 2007, 03:25 AM Post #11 |
|
ZOOOOOM!
|
It's not a matter of right and wrong. Never has been or will be. It's a matter of ignoring totally retarded regulations at the risk of serious consequences. |
| I cite irreconcilable differences. | |
![]() |
|
| TomK | May 14 2007, 04:55 AM Post #12 |
|
HOLY CARP!!!
|
Which is exactly as ny said--a matter of right and wrong. A thief is a thief. Listen, the record companies own the music. Period. How they choose to prosecute (or persecute) those that steal form them is entirely a matter for them to decide, no one else. Good for the record companies! |
![]() |
|
| ivorythumper | May 14 2007, 09:13 AM Post #13 |
|
I am so adjective that I verb nouns!
|
Ridiculous? Your counter arguments don't even address the main point of the idea: liability protection. Anyone already breaking the law is not going to be interested in liability protection from potential damages of their children's actions. So? Those parents are on their own.
Again, liability protection. The kids get punished, a month later the parents get a law suit and a subpoena. Parents all the time tell their kids to not play with matches, and kids still burn down houses, or a vacant field (as my older brother did). So the kid gets punished, but the damage is still done, and the parents are legally on the hook for damages.
Bad analogy for many reasons. You don't need probable cause for your kids -- and in fact knowing your kids is probably probable cause enough. But again you miss the point. The program would not be to detect illegal downloads (analogy detecting taking drugs via urine test) but to prevent them from illegally downloading.
Not at all. Given automation, and the availability of data, the music companies can get names and addresses of millions of users who illegally download, and slap them all with nasty letters threatening law suits in a matter of weeks-- (in fact, probably another good business opportunity, and much more lucrative). A $20 program to give some measure of liability protection against a several thousand dollar law suit seems like an actuarially sound decision.
Showing once again that you missed the whole point-- it is not a solution against illegal downloading, but against the liability exposure if your kids were to try to illegally download. Keep them from doing something that could jeopardize themselves or the family -- think of it more like putting baby locks on cabinets where chemicals are stored. |
| The dogma lives loudly within me. | |
![]() |
|
| kenny | May 14 2007, 09:17 AM Post #14 |
|
HOLY CARP!!!
|
And the same person can design and profit from both. ![]() Planned obsolescence. |
![]() |
|
| kenny | May 14 2007, 09:21 AM Post #15 |
|
HOLY CARP!!!
|
HUH? |
![]() |
|
| ny1911 | May 14 2007, 02:59 PM Post #16 |
![]()
Senior Carp
|
It all depends on your perception of right and wrong. I think we've been around this track before - I think it is wrong, you think it is OK. Right now the laws agree with me, but that could change I suppose. |
|
So live your life and live it well. There's not much left of me to tell. I just got back up each time I fell. | |
![]() |
|
| QuirtEvans | May 14 2007, 03:16 PM Post #17 |
|
I Owe It All To John D'Oh
|
One important issue is whether artists create music in order to profit, or because they have an irresistible urge to make music. If at least some artists create music in order to profit, and if we reduce their profit by not stopping illegal downloads, then, at the margin, less music will be created. So Aqua's notion, even if it were morally neutral, may be contrary to good public policy, because it takes some of the incentive away from music creation. But, putting all that aside, it's as simple as this: music belongs to the person who creates it, and that person has the right to place whatever conditions they want on the sale of their property. If you don't like the restrictions, don't buy the music. Saying that you want to buy the music, knowing that the restrictions are a condition of purchase, but you don't want to live with the restrictions, strikes me as saying, in effect, you want to write your own rules. Who the hell cares what anyone else thinks, you will do what you think is right and appropriate, no matter what you may have agreed to, and no matter what the law says. In effect, you're saying that your word isn't worth that much, if your self-interest happens to get in the way. And that, to me, is, in a nutshell, the problem with young 'uns today. |
| It would be unwise to underestimate what large groups of ill-informed people acting together can achieve. -- John D'Oh, January 14, 2010. | |
![]() |
|
| DivaDeb | May 14 2007, 03:25 PM Post #18 |
|
HOLY CARP!!!
|
Good gawd Quirt...what a great post! I am in 100 percent agreement with what you wrote and in awe of the clarity with which you expressed it! |
![]() |
|
| TomK | May 14 2007, 03:40 PM Post #19 |
|
HOLY CARP!!!
|
Quirt's right on this one. ![]() Funny how this is the one issue that splits on age. |
![]() |
|
| ivorythumper | May 14 2007, 04:52 PM Post #20 |
|
I am so adjective that I verb nouns!
|
Yep, Quirt is right about the legality and ethics of it (though the whole point of why the artist makes the music is not important at all in thinking about the morality or ethics or legality of theft). The bottom line is that the artist owns it and can do what they choose -- anyone who does not respect that is no different from the thief who does not respect the lock on your front door and your ownership of your television. It doesn't split on age -- just moral compasses. |
| The dogma lives loudly within me. | |
![]() |
|
| « Previous Topic · The New Coffee Room · Next Topic » |










6:39 AM Jul 11