Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 11 to 19 of 19
  1. #11
    6-KINGS Guest

    Re: File Sharing....

    I have a different take on "rights"
    I feel like if I buy the Cd/DVD it is my property.
    Artist's should get their $$ upfront for the recording contract.
    Then the record company sells it to me, not loans it to me to listen too.
    So if I want to copy to my computer/make a back up/change or delete songs and order on a CD that is my right.

    That is like saying if you buy a car you can't change/ alter / share / or resell it.
    I know some will say you can't copy a car. well duh......But the concept is the same.
    Both are my property, bought and maintained by me.

    So Ford knocks on my door and says "hey you loaned your truck to a friend so he could move" "we could have sold or rented a vehicle to that person if you had not given them yours"
    Or "you sold your 1999 to an individual instead of trading in with us and buying a new vehicle from us" "and now we lost out on selling that individual your old vehicle or one of our new ones"

    I say get your cash up front and from sales, but don't tell me what to do with my legal property.

    6-KINGS

  2. #12
    Del Rio Guest

    Re: File Sharing....

    Well it's like software, you are essentially renting it. I never understood that.

  3. #13
    HerdDaVikes is offline Rookie
    Join Date
    Dec 1969
    Posts
    114

    Re: File Sharing....

    to a certain level i agree with you 6kings, the only point i have a problem with is getting the money upfront. that will make the record companies way too much money if a certain artist blows up and sells millions of records. i dont think an upfront payment will solve this problem

  4. #14
    6-KINGS Guest

    Re: File Sharing....

    "HerdDaVikes" wrote:
    to a certain level i agree with you 6kings, the only point i have a problem with is getting the money upfront. that will make the record companies way too much money if a certain artist blows up and sells millions of records. i dont think an upfront payment will solve this problem
    Well yes the phenom thing does happen.
    But I feel like the record company took the risk on the "unknown artist"
    And that is their payback.
    So the next album the "now discovered artists" makes he/she/they will get a bigger contract or bonus. And it builds from there.

  5. #15
    JDogg926's Avatar
    JDogg926 is offline Star Spokesman
    Join Date
    Dec 1969
    Posts
    1,786

    Re: File Sharing....

    The first Napster thing is what made me stop listening to Metallica. Bunch of Pansy-arses.

    I also read somewhere that bands and artists make the majority of their money touring and doing live shows, not record sales.
    542cbf305f333b0554e8ffa937f852d6

  6. #16
    josdin00's Avatar
    josdin00 is offline Ring of Fame
    Join Date
    Dec 1969
    Posts
    3,619

    Re: File Sharing....

    "Del Rio" wrote:
    I doubt they will be able to uphold any law or even pass a legitimate one in regards to this.

    The software companies are not to blame most of them have practical legal uses and as long as they do not advertise illegal activity they have done absolutely nothing wrong.
    The companies that don't promote illegal activities aren't going to lose if they get sued.

    from the article:
    "We hold that one who distributes a device with the object of promoting its use to infringe copyright, as shown by the clear expression or other affirmative steps taken to foster infringement, is liable for the resulting acts of infringement by third parties," Justice David H. Souter wrote for the court.

    ...

    The lower courts reasoned that, like VCRs, the file-sharing software can be used for "substantial" legal purposes, such as giving away free songs, free software or government documents. They also said the file-sharing services were not legally responsible because they don't have central servers pointing users to copyright material.

    But in Monday's ruling, Souter said lower courts could find the file-sharing services responsible by examining factors such as how companies marketed the product or whether they took easily available steps to reduce infringing uses.


    Looks to me like the court is saying that yes, these companies can be sued, but the judgement should be based on whether or not the company took basic steps to prevent their software from being used illegaly. If the company can show a pettern of behavior that indicates that they deveolped this software strictly for legal use, then they won't be held responsible for the illegal actions of the end-users.

    To use an analogy from an earlier post: Say a gun manufacturer advertised that their newest firearm could punch through the kevlar armor that cops use. If a couple cops get killed by these guns, you better believe that the company is going to be held liable.

    However, if the gun company advertises that their gun is great for punching through tough animal hide while hunting, and those same cops get killed, noting is going to happen to the gun company.

    It's all about the intent of the company.



    I guess I'm in the minority here, but I still believe that if you knowingly break a law, you should be willing to pay the price if you get caught. You can alway try to get the law changed, but just 'cause you think a law is dumb doesn't mean you don't have to pay the price for breaking it.

  7. #17
    Del Rio Guest

    Re: File Sharing....

    "If the company can show a pettern of behavior that indicates that they deveolped this software strictly for legal use"

    They can, and this is why the charges have failed in court twice and will fail again.

    A lot of the big name companies that are defending themselves have software that has legitimate legal applications. And do not advertise illegal doings.

    If the law passed it would be a weak one. All you would have to do is stop advertising you can rip commercial DVD's with it for example. It doesn't get the product off of the street it only makes them change their wording.

    I am fairly sure that software companies will not be held responsible for the actions of their users. Especially if in their EULA they say it is illegal to do this and that, and we do not promote it. ALOT of this software says that.
    I think it will continue to come down to the individual.

  8. #18
    GQVikesfan is offline Starter
    Join Date
    Dec 1969
    Posts
    260

    Re: File Sharing....

    "JDogg926" wrote:
    The first Napster thing is what made me stop listening to Metallica. Bunch of Pansy-arses.

    I also read somewhere that bands and artists make the majority of their money touring and doing live shows, not record sales.
    ^ I heard that too..
    My toys!
    http://photobucket.com/albums/v158/GQNauticaGuy/?action=viewĄt=car2.jpg
    http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v158/GQNauticaGuy/Audi3.jpg

  9. #19
    smootpepper is offline Pro-Bowler
    Join Date
    Dec 1969
    Posts
    409

    Re: File Sharing....

    "josdin00" wrote:
    "Del Rio" wrote:
    I doubt they will be able to uphold any law or even pass a legitimate one in regards to this.

    The software companies are not to blame most of them have practical legal uses and as long as they do not advertise illegal activity they have done absolutely nothing wrong.
    The companies that don't promote illegal activities aren't going to lose if they get sued.

    from the article:
    "We hold that one who distributes a device with the object of promoting its use to infringe copyright, as shown by the clear expression or other affirmative steps taken to foster infringement, is liable for the resulting acts of infringement by third parties," Justice David H. Souter wrote for the court.

    ...

    The lower courts reasoned that, like VCRs, the file-sharing software can be used for "substantial" legal purposes, such as giving away free songs, free software or government documents. They also said the file-sharing services were not legally responsible because they don't have central servers pointing users to copyright material.

    But in Monday's ruling, Souter said lower courts could find the file-sharing services responsible by examining factors such as how companies marketed the product or whether they took easily available steps to reduce infringing uses.


    Looks to me like the court is saying that yes, these companies can be sued, but the judgement should be based on whether or not the company took basic steps to prevent their software from being used illegaly. If the company can show a pettern of behavior that indicates that they deveolped this software strictly for legal use, then they won't be held responsible for the illegal actions of the end-users.

    To use an analogy from an earlier post: Say a gun manufacturer advertised that their newest firearm could punch through the kevlar armor that cops use. If a couple cops get killed by these guns, you better believe that the company is going to be held liable.

    However, if the gun company advertises that their gun is great for punching through tough animal hide while hunting, and those same cops get killed, noting is going to happen to the gun company.

    It's all about the intent of the company.



    I guess I'm in the minority here, but I still believe that if you knowingly break a law, you should be willing to pay the price if you get caught. You can alway try to get the law changed, but just 'cause you think a law is dumb doesn't mean you don't have to pay the price for breaking it.
    But what constitutes as "promoting illegal use" is where I have problems. They dont really specify. I see them going after any software company that says download free music, movies, and software as an advertisement and will sue just for that.

    I see a lot of P2P software companies going under, not by legal judgement. But by legal bills.

    The only thing that will really save the music industy is changing its business model.

Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12

Similar Threads

  1. WMV file
    By snowinapril in forum Help / Suggestion Box
    Replies: 11
    Last Post: 11-08-2007, 05:05 AM
  2. Can you turn a PAL video file into a NTSC file?
    By poult in forum The Clubhouse
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 10-22-2006, 10:04 PM
  3. Singer's New SIG file!
    By Zeus in forum Two Beer Minimum
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 09-07-2006, 07:49 AM
  4. Here's one for the "You've GOT to be KIDDING ME!" file...
    By shockzilla in forum The Clubhouse
    Replies: 20
    Last Post: 07-18-2006, 08:52 PM
  5. Wav file download
    By AngloVike in forum Help / Suggestion Box
    Replies: 14
    Last Post: 02-18-2006, 10:43 PM

Tags for this Thread

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •