Bah, who am I kidding . . . of course there will be.

Second. Sharing copyrighted material over the internet is illegal in every country, but only the USA makes a big deal out of it (dutchie here).
I wonder why

Third. I’ve read some posts here about people who laughs at the poor woman but are proud of not sharing downloaded files. Well, get a life then and buzz off, ’cause this torrent-thingy over here will not survive without sharing. Nice knowing that there are people who still believe in hit and run and laughs at those who do not know much about P2P, torrents, filesharing etc.
Thank you!!! NOT.

Fourth.
Indeed, some people can’t afford buying movies/music although they want to. And guess what! They get in touch with programs like kazaa, napster, limewire, some lucky bastards find torrent programs and PG or friends. Don’t know a thing about it, but hey! They’ve got their movies and music!! Happily ever after..not..Suddenly they got sued.
Nice..
It’s not the file sharers this RIAA must go after; because that’s also a very lame thing.
You catch my drift?

For example, if X goes to a restaurant and, by mistake, takes Y’s scarf instead of her own, she has physically deprived Y of the use of the property (which is the actus reus) but the mistake prevents X from forming the mens rea (i.e. because she believes that she is the owner, she is not dishonest and does not intend to deprive the “owner” of it) so no crime has been committed at this point. But if she realises the mistake when she gets home and could return the scarf to Y, she will steal the scarf if she dishonestly keeps it. Note that there may be civil liability for the torts of trespass to chattels or conversion in either eventuality.
“Theft” – Wikipedia

of course part of the problem is that historically property has been physical tangible unique, but now sending a copy doesn’t necessarily permanently deprive the original owner/possessor

I do agree 100% with rslog’s position…imagine Galileo, Newton etc. seeking copyright protection for their ideas?

Back on topic;
What a bullsh*t, RIAA trying to scare people off. I wonder how many RIAA employees download themselves, or their families, or their friends..

Copyright

Historically, copyright originated only in the last few centuries. Creativity flourished well before copyright existed. The European Renaissance saw a burgeoning of intellectual talent, the like of which has not been seen since. It occurred before the existence of copyrights, and was spurred by artists copying each other’s techniques and works without legal restriction. The argument that copyright law protects and encourages development is seen by many as hype intended to provide moral justification for laws which in fact are there to protect the incomes and wealth of copyright holders, many of whom are not the original developers anyway.

The classic argument for personal copyright is to grant developers property rights to encourage further development work by giving the developer a source of income. Making the developer dependent on a system that requires enforcement directly ties them to large corporate entities which are able to carry out this enforcement, but may at the same time limit creative output to that which is compatible with corporate/capitalist ideology.

Copyright was intended as, and until recently has been used mostly for, a regulation on commercial and for-profit use of creative works. While technically most copyright laws applied to individuals making copies, it was only the advent of the personal computer that made it possible for individuals to copy significant amounts of information. Many argue that this new ability calls for a fundamental change to, or the abolition of copyright.

Copyright has increasingly become an instrument for securing huge investments. But for a democratic society, that thrives on a large diversity of freely expressed and discussed cultural expressions, it’s succumbs to stagnation and regression, all because of some bureaucratic encumbrance of intellectual property rights.

How can DRM identify “fair use” of copyrighted material?

How is the First Amendment affected by the Digital Millennium Copyright Act?

Copyrights are selfish; they place the good of the one (the creator) over the good of the many (the audience). Instead of allowing a work to be improved and redistributed by those who may be more qualified than the original author, works are restricted in the name of monetary profit.

“With its entertainment industry accomplices, Microsoft is turning your general-purpose computer into a toaster—a content-vending appliance that obeys copyright holders, not you.” – Electronic Frontier Foundation

Berkeley law professor Pam Samuelson points out, copyright law is way too verbose; it’s now swollen to an unbelievable 200 pages long. It’s complex, incomprehensible, designed to favor large copyright holders over defendants, and thoroughly out of touch with reality.

The technical term for this is “rent-seeking,” meaning special-interest coalitions who pressure the government to transfer wealth to them. The Sonny Bono Copyright Term Extension Act, the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, the Family Entertainment and Copyright Act, the No Electronic Theft Act, etc…

Many argue that copyright is inherently contrary to the ideals of free speech and expression which are valued highly by free societies. Some corporations abuse copyright privileges by suing or threatening to sue those who clearly are within their rights under fair use, but who cannot afford to defend themselves in court. While some are in favor of limited copyright terms, copyrights in many countries last for periods longer than a human lifetime.

An economy operating under intellectual property rules is not Pareto efficient, and hence said to be less prosperous than an unrestricted economy, if it is presumed that copyright is a hindrance rather than a help to innovation.

Patents

Software patents deny society their culture expressions, and creative innovation, by locking out the individual from sharing their ideas with each other and by leaving nothing for other artists and or creators to build on…

Patents are suppressing innovation in the digital age by making it possible to monopolize methods and practices. Hundreds of thousands of patents sit on a shelf somewhere, never to be implemented, their ideas shut out from the rest of the world.

They frame this as a massive battle to stop theft, to protect property. Who’s property? Property originating of and by our society for their corporate proprietors in pursuit of making more profits, as patentees and monopolizers, regulating our culture’s creativity, by controlling the evolution of our culture?

Creativity and innovation always builds on the past.
The past always tries to control the creativity that builds upon it.
Free societies enable the future by limiting this power of the past.

Creativity has come to a standstill in this country for those who wish to work within, and benefit from, the confines of the law. Legitimate creative derivative works are now smothered by the excessive terms, restrictions and punishments of our copyright system.

Where does an algorithm end and a patentable invention begin?

How much variation distinguishes one idea from another?

The vast majority of copyrighted works is owned by a relatively small group of large conglomerates. These mega-industries create, invent or produce nothing at all, yet demand that artists sign over all rights to their works to them [Recording Industry Association of America, Motion Picture Association of America], just for the privilege of having their works distributed.

It is unfortunately quite clear such patents have nothing to do with protecting investments nor research and development, and only with obtaining exclusion rights which can help them [Microsoft's +6000 patents] maintain their dominant position in the market.

The consequences are detrimental by having a few dictate to the rest what culture sharing among us can be allowed, while stunting our growth, and our spirit for the spread of our culture. Even our culture identity is hindered. Consider currently, almost anything can be someone’s property, such as fragrances and colors; even the makeup of the proteins in our blood and the genes in our body cells are being claimed as the exclusive property of one company or another, which can subsequently bar anyone else from using it.

Artists and inventors have always used and built upon other artists’ and inventors work to create new works of art and invention coming into existence without this principle of freely building on the work of predecessors.

Why be against Software Patents? First, a cartel of large corporations will crush smaller competitors by controlling and owning what another does not. Consequently, we (you personally, your household, your company, your government, all of us) will all pay more money for less, as fewer options will be created and made available for your choice, especially in society regarding our culture. The concentration of power, which here is the control of ownership, stated as IPR (intellectual property rights) is undesirable in every branch of industry, because it is particularly detrimental towards how individuals are able to share, distribute and build up prior culture innovation.

“If people had understood how patents would be granted when most of today’s ideas were invented and had taken out patents, the industry would be at a complete standstill today…The solution is patenting as much as we can. A future startup with no patents of its own will be forced to pay whatever price the giants choose to impose. That price might be high. Established companies have an interest in excluding future competitors.” – Bill Gates 1991

“In the majority of cases in software, patents [affect] independent invention. Get a dozen sharp programmers together, give them all a hard problem to work on, and a bunch of them will come up with solutions that would probably be patentable, and be similar enough that the first programmer to file the patent could sue the others for patent infringement. Why should society reward that? … The programmer that filed the patent didn’t work any harder because a patent might be available, solving the problem was his job and he had to do it anyway. … Yes, it is a legal tool that may help you against your competitors, but I’ll have no part of it. It’s basically mugging someone.” – John Carmack 2005

“…The time and money we spend on patent filings, prosecution, and maintenance, litigation and licensing could be better spent on product development and research leading to more innovation…” – Robert Barr (Cisco Systems Intellectual Property Department) 2002

“Because it is impossible to know what patent applications are in the application pipeline, it is entirely possible, even likely, to develop software which incorporates features that are the subject of another firm’s patent application. Thus, there is no avoiding the risk of inadvertently finding oneself being accused of a patent infringement simply because no information was publicly available at the time which could have offered guidance of what to avoid.” – Mitch Kapor 1994 (Founder of Lotus 123)

Fair Use

Fair use is a copyright principle based on the belief that the public is entitled to freely use portions of copyrighted materials for purposes of commentary and criticism. For example, if you wish to criticize a novelist, you should have the freedom to quote a portion of the novelist’s work without asking permission.

Major entertainment companies are using “digital rights management,” or DRM (aka content or copy protection), to lock up your digital media content. These DRM technologies interfering with consumers’ lawful use of music, movies, and other copyrighted works and are invading users’ privacy and creating severe security vulnerabilities in computers.

How can DRM identify “fair use” of copyrighted material?

Conclusion

New ideas challenge the status quo. That’s why people who make cool tools get so much heat from the old guard — and their lawyers.

How will you be able to answer these below questions?

1. What would happen if copyright were abolished?

2. What about our rights as citizens to be allowed both individual expression and equal access to information in a free and open transparent society of a democratic republic?

Intelligence = The capacity to acquire and apply knowledge.

Insight = The capacity to discern the true nature of a situation.

3. How does society benefit when it’s own people are barred, blocked and denied their rights to understand how these technologies work, function and operate?

It is increasingly critical for people to work together across boundaries.

4. What kind of society ahead are we creating when the people of society are becoming
indentured servant as consumers?

No freedom to learn, but instead compulsory servitude.

5. Do individuals want a society in which arithmetic to become property, just as proprietary source code?

In the absence of copyright and intellectual property, these works can be freely enjoyed and exchanged by anyone. File sharing can become the online library for all to benefit and a veritable blessing to cultural democracy.

Piracy will exist, allways…

“If you dont have the cash, you download it” – Poor fellah

Ok, thats about all I can comment atm.

I’ve never used IRC myself. I tried, back when RLSLog was down, but the IRC client I tried to use kept crashing on me. The second one I tried complained that it couldn’t connect, or that I was doing something wrong. At that point I gave up.

RickySlade,

I download copyrighted material, so I can’t exactly argue that I’m against court decisions like this because I only want to protect people’s rights. However…

I think that the current laws with regard to copyright are ridiculous. Copyright terms now extend well beyond anything the creators of copyright law ever envisioned. Not only that, but in the USA at least, the subject of copyright infringement is treated as the number one issue threatening the world. In fact, NBC went so far as to say that the FBI’s priorities are wrong and that they should go after copyright infringement first and foremost;

http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20070615-copyright-coalition-piracy-more-serious-than-burglary-fraud-bank-robbery.html

If we’re to believe the RIAA and MPAA, drastic measures need to be taken or the entire economy will collapse and plunge the world into a new dark age! This despite the fact that music sales continue to rise and the movie industry just had their best summer ever.

What I think should be done (a pipedream, I know);

1. Reduce copyright terms to something more reasonable, like 30 years max, less for games (which are outdated faster). This would keep corporations from hoarding older works and eliminate the problem where your favorite work isn’t available to buy. It would also ensure that plenty of works are added to the public domain for other creators to draw upon. Finally, it would force corporations to output more works if they want to remain profitable, rather than relying on the sales of their older works.

2. Force corporations to pay a yearly fee for each work they want to retain the copyright to. Individuals would also have to pay, but a much lower amount. This would force companies to re-evaluate which copyrights are worth hanging onto, so that lesser works could pass into the public domain sooner.

3. Reduce penalties for copyright infringement to something much closer to the actual amount lost by the corporation. If someone shares something that the corporation isn’t making any money on, the person shouldn’t be charged at all, or a very small amount.

4. Make digital copies of music and films available in a hi-quality, unrestricted format, for a good price, that provides all the benefits of the illegal copies with none of the risk. Piracy will never be 100% eliminated, but this would entice people who don’t like the current restrictions and who would otherwise turn to illegal sources.

5. Make the RIAA and MPAA stop opposing every single new technology that comes out related to audio and video and insisting that every new audio/video technology be crippled with DRM. No broadcast flags, no region coding, no CSS, etc.

These things would benefit consumers, build some goodwill between the corporations and consumers and do more to combat piracy than the current campaign of elevating copyright infringers to public enemy #1. Eventually, that’s going to backfire on them in a big way.